Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134394 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3096 of 2025 Petitioner :- Firdos Ahmad Respondent :- State Of Up And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Yadav,Surya Ditya Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel, holding the brief of Sri Satyawan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monika Arya, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "1. Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent no.2, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj to hear and decide the stay application dated 4.11.2024 filed in Revision No.REV/4668/2024 (Computerized Case No.AL20241506004668) (Firdos Ahmad vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Revenue, Lucknow and Others), pending before respondent no.2 since 4.11.2024." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that lease for housing purpose was granted in favour of the petitioner on 18.4.1981 and the cancellation proceeding has been initiated in the year 2017, which is abuse of process of law. He submitted that lease of the petitioner has been cancelled vide order dated 4.9.2024, accordingly, petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue which is pending since 2024. He submitted that revision was accompanied with stay application but no order has been passed on the stay application and the authorities are interferring with the possession of the petitioner, as such, interim protection is required in the matter. He further submitted that appropriate direction be issued for the expeditious disposal of the revision filed by the petitioner and till the pendency of the revision, status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in dispute, should be maintained. 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that revision filed by petitioner is pending before the Board of Revenue, as such, petitioner should press his revision as well as stay application before the Board of Revenue rather writ petition before this Court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and state as well as perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that lease for housing purpose was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1981 and cancellation proceeding has been initiated in the year 2017. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner's lease has been cancelled in the year 2024. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision along with stay application filed by the petitioner, is pending before respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj since 2024. 7. This Court in the case reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and Others has held that the interim protection be granted during pendency of appeal / revision if the order under appeal and revision has serious consequences. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the judgment is relevant which is as follows: "4. It is well settled that once an appeal or revision is entertained by a higher Court against an order having civil consequences stay normally should be granted to avoid swinging pendulum unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded finds that there is no case for grant of stay as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand v. Raza Buland Sugar Industries." 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 16.11.2006 is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Appellate Court is directed to disposal of the appeal of petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him and till the disposal of appeal as directed above, parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the land in dispute." 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Ali Sher (supra), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj to decide the aforesaid revision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months, 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 and till the disposal of the revision before the Board of Revenue, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the property in question. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad