Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
(2.) IN proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation an order came to be passed by the Tahsildar on 14.3.2011 whereby the restoration application filed by the Petitioner was rejected and the order dated 21.10.1989 was maintained. Aggrieved the Petitioner filed a revision before the Member of the Board of Revenue who admitted the revision and passed an interim order on 1.4.2011. Against the said interim order the opposite parties went up in a revision before the Board of Revenue at Lucknow and the operation of the interim order as well as the order dated 10.5.2011 were stayed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the same learned Member of the Board of Revenue Sanjai Bhus Reddy has himself ruled that No. revision would lie against an interim order in a decision reported in, 2011 (3) AWC Para 3.66 yet the same Member has violated his own judgment and passed an interim order.;