HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3215 of 2025 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Heard Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gautam Baghel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the Board have, after reserving orders, issued notice to the respondents and summoned record pending admission in order to decide whether the revision is fit to be admitted. Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Counsel has very persuasively argued to submit that on 07.10.2024, the revisionists and respondent no. 5, who was the caveator, were heard on admission and orders reserved. But, by the impugned order, the Board have remarked committing an error apparent on the face of record that the caveator's learned Counsel was not present; in fact, during the hearing for admission of the revision, the learned Counsel for the caveator was heard. A perusal of the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Board reserving orders bears out with Mr. Sharma's contention that indeed the learned Counsel for the caveator was heard and orders reserved on the question of admission. Now, the order that has been passed, in fact, records in error indeed that the learned Counsel for the caveator was not heard. At the same time, what we find is that apart from this error apparent, the order impugned dated 27.11.2024 is not an order of moment. The Board might have committed an error apparent, but has not passed any order, deciding rights of parties or impinging on the same. He has after all issued notice Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Himanshu Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Gautam Baghel, Utkarsh Singh Mahadev Mahavidyalaya, Bariyasanpur Pargana Jalhupur, Tehsil Sadar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 21 Others .....Respondent(s) to all the respondents, summoned the records and posted the matters for admission again. In these circumstances, while cautioning the Board to be careful in making an accurate record of proceedings earlier taken, we do not find this to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. We decline, therefore, to interfere with the order dated 27.11.2024. At the same time, we think that the Board should now, on the next date fixed, pass orders on the motion for admission, and, more particularly, the petitioner's application for the interim relief/stay that has been moved along with the revision. The orders shall be passed by the Board on the next date scheduled, or at the most, within a week, after the next date. This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. Let this order be communicated to the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours. September 1, 2025 Deepak WRIB No. 3215 of 2025 2 (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad