HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3742 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 24.6.2026 and the order of the respondent no. 3, dated 5.3.2025. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his father late Akshaywar purchased plot nos. 15, 33 & 34, total area 2.13 acre from its recorded bhumidhar late Ganesh. By the order dated 27.7.1987, on the basis of the sale deed, the name of Akshaywar was recorded in the revenue records, however, the name of Ganesh was not expunged. Subsequently, after death of Ganesh, the names of his sons, the respondent nos. 5 & 6, were recorded. 4. Coming to know about the discrepancy in the revenue records, the petitioner moved an application before the Deputy District Magistrate, Sadar, District Varanasi, under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for its correction. The said application was rejected on the ground that as entries are from quite a long time, it is not justified to be modified. Against the order of the Deputy Collector, Revenue, Varanasi, dated 5.3.2025, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent no. 2, which is pending as Case No. 2422 of 2025. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that due to continuing names of respondent nos. 5 & 6 in the revenue records, contrary to the sale deed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Niraj Tiwari, Rohit Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Akhilesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) dated 21.3.1964, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 are negotiating the sale of the property. However, the stay application filed by the petitioner in Revision No. 2422 of 2025, has been rejected on the ground that the original sale deed was not produced and the matter was directed to be listed for final disposal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as there was no occasion to produce the original sale deed in the revision filed by the petitioner, unless an order is passed summoning the sale deed. Moreover, the report of the Lekhpal categorically states that the entire area of plot nos. 15, 33 and 34, which was subject matter of the sale deed, had been transferred in favour of the father of the petitioner, therefore, the rejection of the stay application was not justified. It has further been contended that despite the case being listed for final hearing it has not been disposed of till date. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for interfering with the interim order rejecting the stay application by the respondent no. 2 during pendency of the Revision No. 2422 of 2025. It is contended that any finding recorded on the merits of the case would preempt the order to be passed by the respondent no. 2 while deciding the revision on merits. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that the order dated 5.3.2025 is under challenge in revision before the respondent no. 2, whose validity cannot be determined by this Court at this stage. The subject matter of sale deed and the area under transfer can be considered by the respondent no. 2 at the time of final hearing of the revision. However, despite the dates for final disposal of the revision having been fixed, matter could not be decided, the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondent nos. 5 & 6 may create third party interest, is not misplaced. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide Revision No. 2422 of 2025, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after WRIB No. 3742 of 2026 2 hearing all the concerned parties, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that till disposal of revision, none of the parties shall create third party interest in the land in dispute. September 24, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WRIB No. 3742 of 2026 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad