JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed the instruction before the Court in compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.1.2023 which is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Ram Bachan Yadav, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. The instant petition has been filed for mandamus commanding the respondent No.4 to restore the house of the petitioner in its previous position which has been demolished in part by the authorities in spite of the pendency of civil suit before the Civil Court as well as the proceeding pending before the Revisional Court. It is also prayed that necessary action be taken against the authorities who have illegally demolished the the petitioner's construction in part without conducting legal procedure.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is bhoomidhar of plot No. 2043 area 0.0080 hectare and house is situated over the same. Private respondent No.8 is the owner of adjacent plot 1950. Civil suit No. 892 of 2022 was filed by petitioner for injunction impleading private-respondent No.8 Bacchu as defendant. In the aforementioned civil suit, interim injunction for maintaining status quo has been passed which is still in operation. Proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated against the petitioner in respect to plot No. 2042 area 0.0001 hectare which is recorded as chak marg in the revenue records. Tehsildar vide order dated 8.9.2022 passed the order for ejectment of the petitioner from plot No. 2042 area 0.001 hectare and also imposed damages against the petitioner. Against the order of ejectment and damages dated 8.9.2022 petitioner filed a restoration application on 7.10.2020 before the Tehsildar which is still pending for disposal. It is mentioned in the writ petition that boundary wall of the petitioner's construction has been demolished in compliance of the order of ejectment and damages passed against the petitioner on 8.9.2022. In Paragraph 10 of the petition, it is mentioned that authorities have demolished the part of the construction on 22.11.2022. Hence this writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is recorded owner of plot No. 2043 and have raised the construction in his plot. He further submitted that petitioner has not raised any construction in the plot No. 2042. He further submitted that civil suit against the private-respondent No.8 is pending in which the interim injunction for maintaining status quo is operating in respect to plot No. 2043 and in disobedience of injunction order, the part of the petitioner's construction has been demolished by the authorities. He submitted that against the order of ejectment and damages passed against the petitioner in respect to plot No. 2042 in the proceeding under Section 67 , restoration application is pending before the respondent No.4, Tehsildar, as such, the act of demolition of petitioner's construction by the State-authorities is wholly illegal and petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in (2022) 0 Supreme Allahabad 1038 Vijay v. State of U.P. and Others as well as the Government order dated 3.8.2022. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the aforementioned Division Bench Judgement rendered in Vijay (Supra), petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petit