Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63767 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1452 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd Kasim Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. C.S. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Gram Sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 9.1.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, Belthra Road, Ballia in case no. 591 (Mohd. Gyurullah Vs. Gaon Sabha and others)." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, Consolidation Officer has passed the final order dated 30.5.2023 directing to record the name of petitioner along with others over the plot No. 197 area 0.174 hectare after expunging the entry of Matruk. He submitted that against the order dated 30.5.2023, restoration application dated 21.6.2023 has been filed by one Mohd Gyurullah/ respondent no.4 which is pending. He further submitted that another stay application dated 9.1.2024 was filed by respondent no.4 and on the application itself, the interim order has been granted without allowing the restoration application and without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner who has filed caveat against the order dated 30.5.2023. He submitted that order dated 9.1.2024 by which petitioner has been restrained to cultivate the plot in question as well as maintain status quo cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. Mr. Shailesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that no interference is required against the order passed by Consolidation Officer granting interim protection during pendency of restoration application. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the final order was passed by Consolidation Officer for recording the name of petitioner along with others after expunging the entry of Matruk. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration application filed against the order dated 30.5.2023 has not been allowed but petitioner has been restrained by ex-parte order dated 9.1.2024 to cultivate the plot in question. 7. The grant of interim order during pendency of restoration application against the final order passed by Consolidation Officer for recording the name of petitioner over the plot in question is wholly illegal. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 9.1.2024 passed by respondent no.2/ Consolidation Officer on the stay application dated 9.1.2024 is hereby set aside. 9. The writ petition stands allowed and respondent no.2/ Consolidation Officer Belthra Road Ballia is directed to decide the pending restoration application dated 21.6.2023 in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously. The notice has not been issued to the private respondents before passing of this order as the restoration application is still pending before the Consolidation Officer where parties will be heard. However the private respondents can file recall application against this order if they will have any grievance against this order. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad