Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114830 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19419 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harsh Vardhan Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bala Nath Mishra,Ram Vishal Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer; "(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the illegal impugned order dated. 24.5.2025 (being Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2." 2. Petitioners before this Court had questioned the order passed on 24.5.2025 by respondent no. 2 in proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the 'Code of 2006'). Petitioners claim that the proceeding of mutation was under challenge and matter had travelled up to this Court through Writ-B No. 2235 of 2023 wherein an interim order was passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.7.2023, which is extracted here as under; "1. Heard Sri B.N. Mishra assisted by Sri R.V. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent nos. 1, 1A, 2, 3 & 4. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.04.2023 and 21.12.1998 passed by the respondent nos. 1A and 3, as contained in annexure no. 10 & 5 to the writ petition. 3. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the review petition that has been finally allowed by the Board of Revenue- respondent no. 1A was not at all maintainable being the second revision. Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai appearing for the respondent no.5 has vehemently opposed the said contention of the petitioner on the ground that the revision has been filed by the respondent no.5 as his first revision and the same cannot be said to be the second revision by the respondent no.5. 4. The matter requires consideration. 5. Issue notice to the respondent no.6, returnable at an early date. 6. Steps for service of notice be taken within ten days. 7. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Respondent no.5 may also file his counter affidavit within the aforesaid period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 8. List after the expiry of the aforesaid period. 9. Any transaction made during the pendency of the present writ petition in respect of the property in question shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition." 3. According to petitioners' counsel Sri Mishra the coordinate Bench of this Court had restrained the parties to the writ petition from making any transaction and despite the interim order being passed in writ petition the property in question has been sold by contesting respondent and an application for mutation was moved under Section 34 of the Code of 2006 in which mutation order was passed by the authority concerned on 24.5.2025, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned ACSC, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that the order impugned is an appealable order under Section 35 (2) of the Code of 2006. 5. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. This Court prima facie finds that the statement made by petitioners' counsel Sri Mishra is totally against the record. The coordinate Bench of this Court had not granted any interim order in favour of petitioners and the Court had only recorded a finding in paragraph no. 9 of the order dated 11.7.2023 that any transaction made during the pendency of the writ petition in respect of the property in question shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 6. The meaning of the sentence of paragraph no. 9 of the order dated 11.7.2023 is clear that any transaction made by parties to the writ petition was subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and no interim order was granted by coordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Learned senior counsel has tried to misguide and had made a false statement before the Court. However, this Court finds that the transaction, which has been done by the contesting respondent is not in defiance of the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court as no interim order was granted on 11.7.2023. The order passed under Section 34 of the Code of 2006 needs no interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the order impugned is an appealable order under Section 35 (2) of the Code of 2006. 8. Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, in case, petitioners approach the appellate authority within 15 days from today, the appellate authority shall not go into the question of limitation and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Shekhar Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad