Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh/Sri Ram Dutt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mridul Kumar, learned standing counsel for the staterespondents and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the staterespondents.

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

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 5.9.2023 passed by respondent no.2 (Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad) in Revision No.2517/2023/Sant Ravidas Nagar, Smt. Kiran Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."

3. Counsel for the petitioners states that the lease executed in favour of the petitioners on 12.7.2019, was approved in accordance with law. He further submitted that the proceeding under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated and the petitioners' lease has been cancelled in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the petitioner challenged the order of cancellation by way of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with prayer for an interim relief. He further submitted that the revision was entertained but the application for interim relief has been rejected under the impugned order. He also submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and that of this Court, interim protection is to be granted in the matter.

4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel and the counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that revision filed by the petitioner is pending before the revisional court and the prayer for interim relief has been rejected, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that the petitioner should appear in the pending proceeding which will be decided in accordance with law.

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 petitioner's lease has been cancelled under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed against the order of cancellation, has been entertained but the prayer for interim relief has been refused.

7. In order to appreciate the controvery, perusal of the order of cancellation will be relevant which is quoted hereunder:-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

8. In view of the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, no case for interference with respect to interim relief claimed in the revision, is made out.

9. 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 Allahabad to decide the aforesaid Revision No.2517/2023/Sant Ravidas Nagar, Smt. Kiran Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to its logical conclusion, 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.