HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 949 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4 and Shri Jai Pal Singh who has appeared on oral instructions from opposite party no.5. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the order dated 21.8.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh wherein he has not extended the interim protection granted to the petitioner who was the revisionist before him. The facts in brief as submitted by the petitioners is that dispute in the present case pertains to the property of the Bhagwan Deen son of Ram Avatar. It is stated that after the death of Bahgwan Deen an application under Section 12 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was moved by opposite party no.5 claiming herself to be the daughter of Bahgwan Deen. As no objections were filed, the ACO by means of order dated 28.11.1977 allowed the said application and deleted the name of Bahgwan Deen which was directed to be replaced by opposite party no.5. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred by the father of the petitioners namely Ram Bahore which was allowed on 28.01.1978 and the order dated 28.11.1977 passed by the ACO was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the court of Consolidation Officer who vide order dated 20.12.2004 directed to record the name of the petitioners. Against the order dated 20.12.2004 an application for recall was filed by the opposite party no.5 which was allowed on 18.01.2005 against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was rejected on 06.02.2007 and thereafter a revision Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Mishra, Amit Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajendra Kumar @ Rajendra Prasad Tiwari And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the DDC, Pratapgarh vide order dated 05.03.2016 while allowing the appeal remanded back the matter to the court of Consolidation officer. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.09.2024 the Consolidation Officer Lalganj Pratapgarh rejected the claim of the petitioners The order dated 19.09.2024 was challenged by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the form of Appeal No.785/2024 who rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 17.01.2025. On 20.01.2025 petitioners filed a revision bearing no.0028/2025 along with a stay application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 assailing the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Settlement officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh in Appeal No.0785/2024 (in Re – Rajendra Kumar vs. Sundara Devi and Others) and order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Consolidation officer. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation an interim order of status quo was passed on 24.4.2025. It has been submitted that subsequently interim order was extended. In the meanwhile the petitioner had also moved an application on 04.7.2025 /11.7.2025 praying for a direction of extension of status quo over the said land. It is the application of the petitioner which has come to be decided by means of the impugned order dated 21.8.2025. Revisional authority has taken into account the evidence which was led before the Consolidation Officer to the effect that number of witnesses have deposed that Bhagwan Deen had died intestate, some witnesses also stated that he was never married while some had deposed that he had been married but they were not aware of the wife and the children. The petitioners claim himself to be the son of brother of Bhagwan Deen and in absence of legal heirs of Bahgwan Deen he has claimed his right to be mutated to the aforesaid property. From the aforesaid facts which have been discussed by the revisional authority, It is evident that various witnesses have deposed and there is no unequivocal statement to the effect as to whether Bhagwan Deen was married or not and also that whether he had any daughter or not ? These are issues which are yet to be decided by the revisional authority. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for not extending the interim WRIB No. 949 of 2025 2 order granted on 24.4.2025. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.8.2025 is set aside. Parties are directed to maintain status quo till the revision is finally decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Considering both the parties have put in appearance before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, let the matter be decided by the revisional authority with expedition. Counsel for the respondent no.5 undertakes to file his objections/ counter affidavit within next three weeks. Accordingly, the revisional authority is directed to decide the matter within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. October 6, 2025 mks WRIB No. 949 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench