HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 38703 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the Gaon sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner's Land Arazi No. 151M area 0.114 hectare situated in the village of the Saurai Khurd Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushmabi, till the disposal of appeal of the petitioners. II. Issue a writ order or direction nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.02 to decide the stay application dated 26.02.2026 in Case No. 367 of 2026, Computerized Case No. C202602000000367, "Ghanshyam and others Vs Bhaiyalal and Others" under section 38(4) Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 pending in the court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Davison Prayagraj. within stipulated period." 3. Learned cousnel for the petitioners submitted that long standing entry has been expunged in the summary proceeding under Section Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C. Ghanshyam And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 38(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with the stay application is pending before respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Division Prayagraj, District- Prayagraj, as such proper direction be issued for expeditious disposal of the appeal and till the disposal of appeal, respondents should be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners' plot no.151 area 0.114 hectare. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that finding has been recorded that petitioners have failed to prove their entitlement to the plot which is recorded as banjar, as the case, in which order was alleged to be passed for recording the name of petitioner as bhumidhar with transferable right not been found in the record as such the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned cousnel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, learned cousnel for the gaon sabha and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of petitioners along with the stay application is pending before respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Division Prayagraj, District-Prayagraj. 7. Perusal of the revenue entry anenxed along with writ petition prima facie demonstrate that petitioners were recorded over the plot in quesiton since considerable period as such the appeal should be decided in proper manner and till the disposal of the appeal, interim protection should be granted in favour of the petitioners. 8. This Court in the case reported in 2007 (102) RD 498 Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Bijnor and others, has held that if order under appeal or revision has serious consequence then operation of the order must be suspended till pendency of the appeal/ revision. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the judgment rendered in Ali Sher (Supra) will be relevant which are as under: WRIC No. 38703 of 2026 2 "4. It is well settled that once an appeal or revision is entertained by a higher Court against an order having civil consequences stay normally should be granted to avoid swinging pendulum unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded finds that there is no case for grant of stay as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand v. Raza Buland Sugar Industries. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 16.11.2006 is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Appellate Court is directed to disposal of the appeal of petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him and till the disposal of appeal as directed above, parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the land in dispute." 9. Considering the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Ali Sher (Supra) as well as the entire facts and circumstances of the case the instant writ petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Division Prayagraj, District- Prayagraj to decide the aforementioned appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that till the disposal of the aforementioned appeal, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession of the plot in question. September 24, 2026 PS* WRIC No. 38703 of 2026 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad