HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4163 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Sudhir Bharti for the respondent no. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:- "a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus staying the effect and operation of order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow (Respondent No.2) in Revision No. 1465 of 2018 (Computerized Case No. R20180520001465) 'Sriram Vs. Radheyshyam'; b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent No.3 -Sriram, not to alienate the land in dispute and not to interfere in peaceful possession of the Petitioners over the land in dispute during the pendency of the Revision No. 1465 of 2018 before Respondent No.2; c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to decide Revision No. 1465 of 2018 (Computerized Case No. R20180520001465) 'Sriram Vs. Radheyshyam' within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in dispute, belongs to one Sugia, who died on 12.2.1984, pursuant to which, the names of petitioners were recorded in the revenue records on the basis Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuruddh Chaturvedi, Digambar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Radheyshyam And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of succession, rejecting the objection of the respondent no. 3, claiming his right, on the basis of sale deed, dated 25.1.1985. The said order of mutation was challenged by the respondent no. 3, which was upheld upto the revisional stage by the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, dated 26.2.2004, granting liberty to the respondent no. 3 to get his right declared on the basis of sale deed, dated 25.1.1985. 4. Subsequently, in 2023, a fresh application, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was moved by the respondent no. 3, on the basis of which, his name was recorded, without issuing any notice to the petitioners. When the petitioners came to know about the order dated 15.4.2013, passed in the second round of litigation, they moved a recall application, which was allowed by the order of the Tehsildar, dated 3.5.2018. The respondent no. 3 challenged the said order in Revision before the Board of Revenue, in which an interim order was granted on 4.7.2018, admitting the revision and staying the effect and operation of the order dated 3.5.2018. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners appeared in the aforesaid Revision No. 1465 of 2018 and filed a stay vacation application alongwith an application for early hearing. The matter was kept pending and the stay vacation application was not decided, however, subsequently, in 2026 the matter was finally heard on 29.5.2026 and judgment was reserved. 6. By the orders of the respondent no. 2, dated 24.6.2026 and 17.7.2026, the case was again listed on the revision and no final orders were passed and the case was reserved for delivery of judgment. However, by the order dated 7.8.2026, showing paucity of time, the matter has been directed to be listed for hearing afresh on 25.11.2026, allowing the application for early hearing. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that during pendency of the revision, the respondent no. 3 is negotiating sale with third party and has executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Meena Devi on 21.5.2026. The approach of respondent no. 2 in lingering the matter would lead to WRIB No. 4163 of 2026 2 multiplicity of proceedings if the respondent no. 3 executes any sale deed in favour of third party. 8. I have considered the submission made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The perusal of the ordersheet shows that the matter is listed for final hearing 25.11.2026. As 25.11.2026 has already been fixed in the case, which is in the knowledge of both the parties, there is no justification in preponing the date of hearing, however, the respondent no. 2 is directed that on the next date fixed i.e. 25.11.2026, the revision shall be heard and decided finally, in accordance with law. 10. In view of the fact that the respondent no. 3 is trying to create third party interest in the land in dispute, till the disposal of the revision, the parties are directed not to create third party interest in the land in dispute. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. September 18, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WRIB No. 4163 of 2026 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad