Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65983 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1548 of 2025 Petitioner :- Neetu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Babu Ram Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing respondent no. 2 to decide Revision No.529/413/2025 (Computer Case No.20245402300000538) (Neetu Singh vs. Balwant Singh Others), pending before respondent no.2, under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act expeditiously. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the consolidation authorities to keep in abeyance the impugned order dated 21.4.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case Nos. 1 + 2 + 3 (Computer Case Nos.2016550203020004 + 2016550203020005 + 2026550203020006 (Balwant and Others vs. Ram Kishore and Others), under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953; order dated 2.8.2024, passed by the appellate court/Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No.103 of 2023/550 (Computer Case No.2-235402300000103) (Neetu vs. Balwant) and order dated 16.9.2024 passed under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules in Case No.0522 of 2024 and in Case No.27/2024 (Balwant Singh vs. Gyanendra and Others) till pendency of revision filed by the petitioner". 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that long standing entry of the petitioner has been expunged in arbitrary manner on the basis of objection filed by the private respondent. He submitted that petitioner is still in possession over the plot in question. He also submitted that title appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, accordingly, petitioner has filed title revision which is pending before respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj. He submitted that private respondents are not cooperating in the pending proceeding rather they are getting the proceeding adjourned on one ground or the other. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for the expeditious disposal of the pending title revision and till the pendency of the revision, petitioner may not be dispossessed from the plot in question. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 submitted that title objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the private respondents has been allowed and the title appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, as such, petitioner is not entitled for interim relief during pendency of pending title revision. 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 title revision filed by the petitioner, impleading the private respondent nos. 3 & 4 as opposite party nos. 1 and 2, is pending before respondent no.2 since 9.8.2024. 7. Considering the fact that respondent nos. 1 & 2 are appearing in the pending revision, as such, the pending title revision should be decided expeditiously. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid title revision to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks, 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 :- 28.4.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad