JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned standing counsel for respondent no.1.

2. Service of notice upon respondent nos. 3 to 5 has been deemed sufficient under order of this Court dated 26.10.2017.

3. The brief facts of the case are that plot no.130, total area 0.453 hectare, situated in village Hata, Tahasil-Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur was recorded as bhumidhari of respondent nos. 3 to 5. A sale deed was alleged to be executed on 4.4.2008 by respondent nos. 3 to 5 in favour of petitioner in respect of 0.56 decimal of plot no.130, the sale deed was registered on 3.6.2008. Another sale deed was alleged to be executed on 12.5.2008 by respondent nos. 3 to 5 in favour of respondent nos. 2 in respect to 0.56 decimal of plot no.130. Petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation of his name in revenue record in the place of his vendor (respondent nos. 3 to 5) on the basis of sale deed dated 4.4.2008 / 3.6.2008 in respect of plot no. 130, area .56 decimal. Respondent no.2 has also filed an application for mutation of her name in the place of vendor (respondent nos. 3 to 5) on the basis of sale deed dated 12.5.2008 in respect of plot no.130, area .56 decimal. On 30.5.2008, respondent nos. 3 to 5 (vendor of petitioner as well as respondent no.2) filed Civil Suit No.455/2008 for cancellation of sale deed alleged to be executed on 12.5.2008 in favour of respondent no.2. Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 19.8.2010 allowed the Mutation Case no.657 filed by petitioner and ordered to record the name of petitioner in the place of respondent nos. 3 to 5 (vendor) as co-tenure holder of plot no.130, area .56 decimal along with respondent nos. 3 to 5 (vendor). Respondent no.2 filed an appeal under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before Sub-Divisional Officer against the order dated 19.8.2010 which was dismissed by Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 9.8.2016. Respondent no.2 challenged the order dated 9.8.2016 through revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before respondent no.1 which has been allowed by respondent no.1 vide order dated 7.11.2016, setting aside the orders dated 9.8.2016 & 19.8.2010 and matter was remanded back before court of concern Tahsildar to consolidate both the mutation cases and decide the same afresh on merit after opportunity to lead evidence as well as hearing to both parties. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of petitioner.

4. This writ petition was entertained on 6.4.2017 and following interim order dated 6.4.2017 was passed by this Court:-

“Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the first respondent.

Issue notice to respondents no.2 to 5.

All the respondents shall file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

It is sought to be urged that no application was moved by the respondent under Section 192-A of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 for consolidation of the pending cases, therefore, the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the order dated 19 August 2010 and 9 August 2016 passed by the Tehsildar and appellate Court, respectively, pursuant thereof, name of the petitioner which was recorded in the revenue record in proceedings under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 would stand expunged in view of the impugned order.

Submission requires consideration.

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 7 November 2016 pased by the first respondent-Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Revision No. Rev/2030/2016/Gorakhpur (Smt. Subhawati vs. Akhilesh Singh and other) shall be kept in abeyance only to the extent setting aside the order dated 19 August 2010 passed by the Nayab Tehsildar, Bansgaon, Gorakhpur and order dated 9 August 2016 passed by