Revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable.

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2446 of 2021

Petitioner :- Awadhesh Singh

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 6 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Raj Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent

no.1, 2 and 3 through video conferencing.

The instant writ petition has been filed to quash the order

dated 02.12.2020 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P.

Lucknow in Revision No.794 of 2020, Computer Case

No.R2020150900794 (Braj Kishor Vs. Awadesh Sing),

under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that

contesting respondents had fraudulently got executed the

sale-deed from the mother of the petitioner in respect of

Arazi Nos. 583M and 578M, area 0.578 hectare and

0.303 hectare respectively. The application for mutation

under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code

was filed at the instance of respondent nos. 4 to 7, the

Naib Tehsildar passed the order dated 26.6.2019 for

recording the name of respondent nos.4 to 7.

Against the order dated 26.6.2019, petitioner filed a

restoration application to recall the order dated 26.6.2019.

The Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 6.11.2019 recalled

the order dated 26.6.2019 and issued notice to

respondent nos.4 to 7.

Against the interlocutory order dated 6.11.2019, allowing

the restoration application of the petitioner, respondent

nos.4 to 7 filed a Revision No.794 of 2020 before Board

of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow. The Board of Revenue vide

impuged order dated 2.12.2020 allowed the revision ex-

parte setting aside the order dated 6.11.2019 and

remanded the matter before the Court of Naib Tehsildar to

decide the petitioner's application dated 19.7.2019 afresh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the revision

filed by respondent nos.4 to 7 against the interlocutory

order dated 6.11.2019 was not maintainable before the

Board of Revenue. Further argument is that no

opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner while

allowing the revision against the interlocutory order. It is

further contended and stated in Paragraph No.11 of the

writ petition that on the basis of impugned revisional order

dated 2.12.2020, respondent no.4 to 7 is going to sell the

property in question.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel states that

since by the impugned order, the matter has been

remanded back to the Court of Tehsildar, hence petitioner

has full opportunity to appear before the Court of

Tehsildar in support of his restoration application.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

Standing Counsel and perused the record.

It is well settled that revision against the interlocutory

order is not maintainable and opportunity of hearing is

also must to the parties in the revision which has not been

afforded to the petitioner who was opposite party in the

revision but in place of keeping the writ petition pending

before this Court it will be appropriate to modify the

impugned order to limited extant.

The matter has been remanded back before the Court of

Tehsildar for hearing the petitioner's restoration

application afresh but in order to maintain the property in

dispute it will be appropriate to modify the impugned

revisional order dated 2.12.2020 to the effect that till the

decision of the petitioner's restoration application dated

19.7.2019, parties shall maintain status quo in respect of

nature and possession of the plot in dispute.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

the writ petition is finally disposed of modifying the

impugned revisional order 2.12.2020 to the effect that

parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature

and possession of the property in dispute till the