HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30312 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sarvanand Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the stay application dated 16.04.2026, submitted by the petitioner in Case No.5060/2026 (Computer Case No.T202605440405060) under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending in the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar, within stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the private respondents to maintain status-quo with regard to nature, possession and user of the land in question being Khata No.159, Gata No.141 area measuring 0.344 hectare Misituated at village Bhaisahi, Tappa- Patyarpar, Pargana-Sidhwa-jobana, Tehsil-Kasya, District- Kushinagar, till the disposal of Case No. 5060/2026 (Computer Case No.T202605440405060) under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending in the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kasya, District-Kushinagar." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit for division of holding Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sarvanand Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Nokhelal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) filed on behalf of the petitioner along with stay application dated 16.4.2026 is pending before respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Officer. He submitted that the private respondent is interferring with the possession of the petitioner, as such, respondent no.2 be directed to decide the stay application dated 16.4.2026 and till then the parties be directed to maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in question. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that suit for division of holding filed on behalf of the petitioner along with stay application is pending before respondent no.2. 6. Considering the circumstances of the case, interest of justice requires that the pending suit proceeding be decided expeditiously. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the aforementioned suit proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 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. It is further directed that all the pending applications in the aforementioned suit shall be decided by the authority before deciding the suit on merit, in accordance with law. September 14, 2026 C.Prakash WRIC No. 30312 of 2026 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad