Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106850 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1398 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Up At Prayagraj And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Bind,Manphool Singh Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2015 passed by Sri Sahab Singh, the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Second Appeal No.3/2001-2002 (Computerized Case No.AL2001103399276) (Puttu since deceased through his L.Rs. and Others vs. Hori and Others). (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of petitioner over the land in question in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2015 passed by Sri Sahab Singh, the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Second Appeal No.3/2001-2002 (Computerized Case No.AL2001103399276) (Puttu since deceased through his L.Rs. and Others vs. Hori and Others)." 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that second appeal, arising out of the proceeding under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, filed on behalf of the petitioner is pending before the Board of Revenue, as such, interim order should be made operative till the pendency of the second appeal. He further submitted that initially interim order was granted but due to dismissal of the second appeal for non-prosecution, the interim order was vacated. He submitted that later on the restoration application has been allowed and the second appeal has been restored to its original number, as such, interim order in the pending second appeal should be made operative till the pendency of the second appeal. He submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Board of Revenue in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such, the impugned order should be set aside and appropriate direction be issued for the expeditious disposal of the second appeal and till the pendency of the second appeal, respondents be restrained from interferring in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect to the plot in dispute. 4. Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state- respondents and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-Land Management committee submitted that no interference is required in the matter as second appeal filed by the petitioner is pending since 2001-02 before the Board of Revenue and on account of dilatory tactics of the petitioner, the second appeal has not been decided. They further submitted that suit as well as 1st appeal filed by petitioner have already been dismissed, recording finding of fact against the petitioner, as such, no interference is required in the matter. 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 the second appeal, arising out of the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, is pending before Board of Revenue since 2001-02. There is also no dispute about the fact that suit and first appeal filed by predecessor of petitioner were dismissed by the court. 7. Considering the fact that second appeal filed at the instance of petitioner is pending before Board of Revenue for the last more than 24 years and it was dismissed for non-prosecution on four occasions, as such, no interference is required against the impugned interlocutory order passed by the Board of Revenue during pendency of second appeal. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj is directed to decide the aforesaid Second Appeal No.3/2001- 2002 (Computerized Case No.AL2001103399276) (Puttu since deceased through his L.Rs. and Others vs. Hori and Others), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad