HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34394 of 2026 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha. 2. The petitioner filed proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in which respondent no. 4 as well as proforma respondents were opposite parties. The dispute was in respect of gata no. 99 and though the respondents were parties to the proceedings, the petitioner's contention was that rights of the respondents would not be affected by the proceedings. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial), Padrauna, Kushinagar allowed the proceedings by order dated 30.10.2025 and also recorded a finding that from the exercise of measurement of gata no.99, no other tenure- holder of the adjoining gatas was being affected. 4. The said order was challenged in appeal at the instance of respondent no. 4 only and the appellate Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, has admitted the appeal and stayed operation of the order dated 30.10.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admission/stay order is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Munna Tiwari, Shivam Kumar Modanwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Shrinath .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and 13 others .....Respondent(s) unsustainable in view of the findings recorded by the first authority that no other person of the adjoining gata would be affected. 6. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha submit that appellate Commissioner has recorded findings that gata no. 99 is surrounded by other gatas, which are recorded as abadi and, therefore, contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. 7. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the order dated 22.04.2026 impugned in this petition, wherein an observation has been made by the appellate Commissioner that prima facie on account of non-facilitating the easementary rights to the tenure holders of the adjoining gatas, they are suffering, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and, hence, prayer to that effect stands refused. 8. At the same time, considering the findings recorded in the order impugned in the appeal, filing of the appeal by one of the several persons, an application/objections filed by the petitioner on 06.04.2026, wherein the very maintainability of appeal and grant of stay has been challenged and the second prayer made in the writ petition, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appellate Commissioner shall carefully peruse the record of proceedings to arrive at a conclusion whether, from the measurement exercise directed by the first authority, the rights and interest of the appellant (respondent no. 4 herein) are at all affected or not. (ii) The appeal shall be decided on merits dealing with the said aspect of the matter within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the appellate Commissioner and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 9. It is made clear that observations made in this order are prima facie in nature as the respondent no. 4 is not before this Court at the moment and, hence, the exercise to be undertaken by the appellate Commissioner WRIC No. 34394 of 2026 2 would be based on his own wisdom and record proceedings as well as submissions made before him. September 8, 2026 Sazia WRIC No. 34394 of 2026 3 (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad