HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 21856 of 2025 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in Case No. 289 of 2025 (Radhakant Vs. Prescribed Authority Ceiling and others) (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Tamkuhiraj, Kushinagar in Case No.95/2025 (Radhakant Vs. Surya Pratap Narayan Singh) (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition)" 2. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition is that objections were filed by the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 before the respondent no.2-Chief Revenue Officer/Prescribed Authority, District Kushinagar, which was registered as Case No.1293 of 2024, the same was allowed vide order dated 07.10.2024. Aggrieved against the aforesaid the State of U.P. filed a recall application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, which was registered as Case No.25 of 2025. The said application was taken up on 16.01.2025 and without hearing the petitioner interim protection was granted by the respondent no.2 and stayed the order dated 07.10.2024. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2025, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act, 1960 before the respondent no.3 namely Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bishram Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Radhakant .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) which was rejected by him vide order dated 29.05.2025 on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable. 3. After some arguements counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer and prayed that the respondent no.2 before whom application filed by the State under Order 9 Rule 13 is pending is directed to decide the same expeditiously. 4. This prayer has not been objected by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State. 5. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, respondent no.2-Chief Revenue Officer/Prescribed Authority, District Kushinagar is directed to conclude the proceedings pending before him in case No.25 of 2025 within a period of four months on merit in accordance with law. September 9, 2025 Pramod Tripathi WRIC No. 21856 of 2025 2 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad