HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4094 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Kailash Pati Singh Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- a) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by respondent no.2/Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj in Revision No. 4135 of 2025 (Computer Case No. AL20251470004135) (Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P.). b) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2/Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj to decide the stay application as well as Revision No. 4135 of 2025 (Computer Case No. AL20251470004135) (Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P.) within stipulated time. c) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision filed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kailash Pati Singh Yadav, Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Om Prakash .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) by petitioner along with the stay application arising out of proceeding under Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the respondent no. 2-Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj. He further submitted that appropriate direction be issued for expiditious disposal of pending revision and till the disposal of the revision interim protection should be granted in respect to the petitioner's construction situated over the plot in question. He next submitted that plot in question is recorded as 'Navin Parti' and the area over which the petitioner is in possession is less than 200 square meter. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that revision along with the stay application filed by petitioner is pending before respondent no. 2-Board of Revenue. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 2- Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj to decide the aforementioned revision, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that before deciding the aforementioned revision all the pending applications shall be disposed of by board of revenue in accordance with law. October 14, 2025 Neetu WRIB No. 4094 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad