JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, counsel for the respondent no. 14 and learned standing counsel for the state-respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner filed a case under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the Tehsidar vide order dated 20.12.2002 ordered to record the name of petitioner along with contesting respondents as legal representative of deceased Ram Singar. Agaisnt the order dated 20.12.2002 contesting respondents filed restoration application, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2003. Contesting respondents challenged the order dated 10.09.2003 in appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.05.2004 accordingly, petitioner challenged the appellate order in revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2012. Petitioner challenged the orders through Writ-C No. 7735 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2019 with direction that petitioner's second appeal pending before Board of Revenue arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act be disposed of within a period of three months and interim protection was gra