HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1235 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh as well as Ms. Pallavi Vatsala for the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No. s 1 to 4 while notice on behalf of respondent No.6 has been accepted by Sri Pankaj Gupta. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 67 of U.p. Revenue Code for allegedly encroaching upon gata No.89 are 0.073 hectare situated at Village Pure Newaji Lal, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. The petitioner has put in appearance in the said proceedings and filed his objections and after hearing the petitioner and considering the objection the notices issued under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code were discharged by means of order dated 4.5.2024 passed by Tehsildar,/Assistant Collector, Lalganj, Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that against the order dated 4.5.2024 opposite party No.5 had preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. The said appeal has been admitted on 13.10.2025. 3. Against the order dated 13.10.2025 the petitioner had preferred a revision before Board of Revenue which has been rejected by means of order dated 9.12.2025 on the ground of maintainability especially considering the fact that the petitioner is a person aggrieved by the order under Section 67 has right to appeal under Section 63 (5) and there is no provision providing for revision. 4. Against the order dated 13.10.2025 that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition stating that the order dated 13.10.2025 is illegal and arbitrary in as much as firstly the appellant /respondent No.5 had no locus standie to file an a appeal as he was not a party to the proceedings under Section 67 f U.P. Revenue Cod. He submits that without condoning the delay the appeal has been admitted 5. Learned Standing counsel has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the District Magistrate while admitting the appeal could not have passed any order on merits of the case. 7. The petitioner has submitted that he has yet to file his objections before the appellate authority and certainly he can raise all the objections which has been raised Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pallavi Vatsala Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Shitla Prasad Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Land Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) in the present writ petition and in case those objection are raised, the appellate authority would be mandated to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. Pending proceedings before the District Magistrate, this Court is not inclined to entertain the matter in as much as all the grounds raised by the petitioner may be adequately considered and decided by the appellate authority itself. 8. Subject to aforesaid directions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. December 19, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1235 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench