Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62309 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12470 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saad Azam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing State Authority not to execute the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by respondent no.4 in T202115060304287 Case No. 4287 of 2021, Computerize Case No. (Report Lekhpal Vs. Mahmmud Azam), Under Section 67 of Revenue Code, 2006 without following proper execution process as prescribed under law. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to decide restoration application dated 05.11.2022 filed by the petitioner expeditiously and also direct the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from his possession over disputed land till final disposal of the restoration application dated 05.11.2022 pending before the respondent no.4 to recall the order dated 26.04.2022. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities/respondent no.2 to assure not to evict the petitioner from alleged possession over plot No.210 situated in Village-Phadgudiya, Tehsil- Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh without following due procedure of law." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an ex- parte order dated 26.04.2022 has been passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code against the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed restoration application which is pending consideration. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the restoration application, the respondents are threatening the petitioner to demolish the constructions of the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and it would be appropriate that respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the restoration application itself. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the aforementioned restoration application, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment. 6. Till the disposal of the restoration application, no demolition shall be carried out in pursuance of the order dated 26.04.2022. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner will cooperate in the early disposal of the restoration application and will not take undue adjournment to linger on the proceedings and in case, the petitioner tries to linger on the proceedings by moving undue adjournment, the interim protection granted by this Court, shall automatically stand vacated. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad