HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3998 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shiv Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Shailesh Srivastava learned Standing counsel for the State- respondents 2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been initiated by the private respondent which is still pending before the Sub Divisional Officer in pursuance of the order passed by Additional Commissioner in appeal. Petitioner challenged the interlocutory order passed during pendency of the proceeding under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 before Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj by way of revision under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Court 2006, which has been dismissed vide order dated 02.9.2005. Hence this writ petition for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Kerakat, District-Jaunpur, Mandal-Varnasi in Case No.13150 of 2025 Computerized Case No.T202514360513150 (Sushila Vs. Grram Sabha) & order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Court Board of Revenue, Prayagraj in Revision No.,3683 of 2025 Computerized case Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Chand Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Nayan Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 13 Others .....Respondent(s) No.AL20251436003683 (Ram Nayan and others Vs. State of U.P,. and others)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding initiated under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the private respondent is not maintainable as plot in question was not vacant and on the part of the plot in question a boundary wall is existing. He submitted that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that proceeding initiated by private respondent is barred by provisions contained under section 80 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such impugned orders should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents submitted that no interference is required in the matter as proceeding under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated by the private respondent is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondents and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated by private respondent is pending before respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Officer Jaunpur. 7. In view of the pendency of the proceeding before the Sub Divisional Officer, no interference is required in the matter. 8. The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly. October 10, 2025 PS* WRIB No. 3998 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad