Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5688 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anand Upadhya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Mishra,Sharda Prasad Mishra,Subhash Chandra Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. Order on Civil Misc. Amendment Application 1. Amendment application filed today is taken on record. 2. Office is directed to allot number to the application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Application is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the prayer clause of writ petition during course of the day. Order on Petition 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :- "To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quash the illegal entries in the Revenue Record made by the consolidation officer in Gata No. 31 (Old No. 189/1/1) situated in Village Garkhara, Pargana Kolasla, Tehsil Pindara, District Varanasi was not converted into Aabadi in the revenue record. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority to correct the Revenue Record and not proceed in pursuance of the illegal entries made by the consolidation officer in the Revenue Record against the petitioner. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus to direct the respondent authority to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the Petitioners in the property in question." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 20.7.2024, an ex parte order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed against the petitioner. On the very same date, petitioner has moved an application for recalling the said order and the aforesaid application is pending. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite pendency of the restoration application, respondents are going to demolish the constructions of petitioner and has already affixed the notice on the property of petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending. 5. In view of the above, respondent No.4 is directed to decide the restoration application, expeditiously, in accordance with law after ensuring notice of service upon all the respondents and providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties provided there is no other legal impediment. 6. Till disposal of the restoration application, parties are directed to maintain status quo and the constructions of petitioner may not be demolished. However, it is further provided that petitioner will not seek any adjournment in the restoration proceedings. In case adjournment is sought by the petitioner, interim protection granted by this Court, shall automatically be vacated. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad