1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned standing counsel for the staterespondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, passed by Hon'ble Member of Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj (respondent no.2) (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition);

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj (respondent no.2) to decide the Revision No.3720 of 2023 (Saiyad Iftekar Ahmad Hashmi vs. Munni Devi and Others), within a stipulated period."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision filed against the order, deciding the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. as well as the preliminary decree passed in the partition suit, has been entertained and an interim order has been granted in arbitrary manner. He submitted that the petitioner has filed an application for vacation of interim order along with the counter affidavit for the last more than 1 year but till date the application for vacation of interim order has not been decided. He submitted that the interim order granted in the revision is wholly illegal, as such, the order granting interim protection is liable to be set aside and the necessary direction be issued for the expeditious disposal of the pending revision.

4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents submitted that no interference is required in the matter as the revision filed by the contesting respondent is pending before the Board of Revenue and the petitioner has full opportunity to press his application for vacation of the interim order in pending revision.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by the contesting respondents is pending before respondent no.2/Board of Revenue and an interim order is operating in the pending revision. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has applied for vacation of the interim order along with the counter affidavit in the pending revision.

7. Since the revision filed by the contesting respondent is pending and the petitioner's application for vacation of the interim order is also pending in the pending revision, the Board of Revenue concerned should decide the pending proceeding in accordance with law.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj to decide the Revision No.REV/3720/2023/Jaunpur (Computerized Case No.AL20231436003720), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. It is further directed that before deciding the revision on merit, pending applications including the application for vacation of interim order, shall be disposed of by the Board of Revenue in accordance with law.