( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order impugned dated 4. 8. 2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby ad-interim stay order has been modified by the Deputy director of Consolidation, Varanasi.

( 2 ) AT the first instance, it is held that ordinarily no writ petition is maintainable against interlocutory order modifying the ad interim stay order unless compelling unconscionable reasons are demonstrated. The writ petition against interlocutory order cannot be entertained as a matter of course under Article 227 of the Constitution. The present writ petition is not maintainable against Interlocutory order and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no objection, if the chak is demarcated on the spot, but delivery of possession should not be made because crops of the petitioner are standing over a portion of chak which is likely to be disturbed causing prejudice to him.

( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner to the effect that his crops are standing, therefore. If delivery of possession is effected, a serious prejudice will be caused to him, is not palatabl