Mahant Banwaripati @ Brahmchari Sadhak Chela v. Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And 3 Others

Heard Shri Anoop Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri Mohan Singh for respondent no.4.

In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondent, is dispensed with.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings pertaining to correction of the records has reached the Board of Revenue before respondent no.3 by filing a Revision No. 2717 of

2025. The petitioner is the respondent in the said revision and has also appeared in the said proceedings by filing a caveat.

It has been submitted that by means of the impugned order dated

26.6.2025 the matter was listed, on which date an application for adjournment was given on behalf of the petitioner. The revisionist therein has stated that the trial court is bent on finally deciding the case and accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Board of Revenue has stayed the order of the trial court by passing a interim order in the matter and the case was posted for 2.7.2025. On 2.7.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner had duly appeared before the Board of Revenue and has also argued the said case, which is apparent from the perusal of the order sheet. Objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, 2 WRIB No. 868 of 2025 time was granted to the revisionist therein, to file his response and the matter was fixed for 2.9.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once he has filed a caveat, then it is incumbent upon the Board of Revenue to hear the petitioner before passing any interim order.

I have perused both the orders dated 26.6.2025 and 2.7.2025 and find that on 26.6.2025 the petitioner himself had got the proceedings adjourned but, considering the urgency, an interim protection was granted in favour of the revisionist, while on 2.7.2025 on the objections filed by the petitioner time has been granted to the respondent to file a reply.

I do not find any infirmity in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue and I further find that the petitioner is duly represented before the Board of Revenue, who had also advanced arguments on 2.7.2025.

In the aforesaid circumstances, no ground for exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for interference is made out, the writ petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 9, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench