Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93502 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16865 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dayashankar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar,Prashant Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 16-4-2025 passed by Assistant Collector Tehsildar, Tehsil-Harriya, District-Basti, respondent no.3 whereby petitioner has been directed to remove his possession on his own, from the plot bearing Gata No.57 area 0.019 hectare situated at Village-Ramya, Post-Sukrauli, Tehsil-Harriya, District-Basti within appeal period, otherwise the same shall be demolished in exercise of the action with the help of police/revenue officers and its expenses will be from him as land revenue as per the provisions of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006. (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioner over land in dispute as alleged plot no. 57 area 0.019 hectare situated at Village-Ramya, Post-Sukrauli, Tehsil- Harriya, District-Basti during pendency of the appeal bearing Appeal no.535 of 2025, (Computerized Case No.D202517140000535, Dayashankar Singh & another Vs. Tehsildar, Harriya & others) under section 67(5) of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an ex-parte order under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed against the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which is still pending. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents are trying to execute the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the appeal in a time frame as may be directed by this Court. 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. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned appeal filed by the petitioner, 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. It is further provided that till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and parties are directed to maintain status quo. The petitioner will also cooperate in disposal of the appeal and will not seek any undue adjournment to linger on the proceedings. 7. It is made clear that in case, an attempt is being made by the petitioner to linger on the proceedings, the interim protection granted by this Court, shall automatically stand vacated. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad