JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also Sri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In compliance of order dated 20.12.2022 passed in Writ - B No. 814 of 2022 both the petitions have been clubbed, as such, the same are being decided by this order.

3. In Writ - B No. - 517 of 2022, the order impugned dated 25.07.2022 was passed in exercise of power under Section 109 A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, in the case registered as Case No. 31 ( Shusheela Devi v. State ) by the respondent No.1-Consolidation Officer, Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the side opposite stated that in view of Rule 109(3) of the Rules of 1954 present petition is not maintainable against the order impugned dated 25.07.2022.

5. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, as per law.

6. In WRIT - B No. - 814 of 2022, the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya/Camp Court, Ambedkar Nagar in Revision No.1196/636/202254040400001220 ( Lallan Prasad v. Susheela & Others) and the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar in Appeal Nos. 180 of 2022 (Lallan Prasad v. Shusheela & Others) and 181 of 2022 (Mithilesh & Others v. Shusheela & Others), has been assailed.

7. By the impugned order dated 11.04.2022, the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief was partly allowed and this order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 11.04.2022 was affirmed by dismissing the revision vide order dated 30.08.2022.

8. While pressing the present petition for the reliefs sought, learned counsel for the petitioner says that despite pending proceedings opposite parties are adamant to alienate the property in issue, as such, the interim relief, as sought by the petitioner in the interim relief application has been filed before the Appellate Authority in the appeal, which has already been admitted and is ripe for hearing, ought to have been granted by the authority concerned, however, the Authority concerned has partly allowed the application for interim relief, whereby parties have been directed to maintain status-quo regarding property in issue and as such, both the orders impugned are liable to be interfered with by this Court.

9. Opposing the present petition, learned counsel for the side opposite stated that present petition assailing the orders impugned passed on the application for interim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In continuation, it is stated that the Appellate authority, after due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 whereby parties have been directed to maintain status-quo and taking note of the same, the Revisional authority has rejected/dismissed the revision of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 30.08.2022. He also stated that the private opposite parties would not alienate/transfer the property in issue nor over the same the charge would be created as there is already an order of status-quo.

10. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the orders impugned.

11. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the side opposite. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is for the