HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3527 of 2025 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed in the revision filed by the respondent no. 6. The parties have been restrained from alienating the property only to protect the subject matter of the proceedings. By the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has directed the parties to maintain status quo and further restrained them from alienating the property till the appeal is decided. The revision was filed by the respondent no. 6 assailing the order passed by the appellate court declining to grant interim protection to the revisionist/respondent no. 6. There is no infirmity in the order. Faced with this, Shri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not wish to press the prayer sought in the writ petition. The prayer sought in the writ petition is accordingly declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners recasts his relief. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharm Vir Jaiswal, Harsh Vikram Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Asad Hussain Khan And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 14 Others .....Respondent(s) The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate authority may be directed to decide the application for interim relief which is filed with the memo of appeal as per law. It is always open to the petitioners to press the prayer for interim relief before the appellate authority. The writ petition is disposed of. September 18, 2025 Vandit WRIB No. 3527 of 2025 2 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad