Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the order dated 5.5.2014 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the SDO, Mathura.
(2.) ISSUE a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 5.5.2014 passed by the SDO, Mathura. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra ceased with the Revision No. 124 of 2013 -14 and 196 of 2014 to pass suitable orders on the application for extension of the interim order dated 17.2.2014 pending consideration before him and meanwhile direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in dispute.
(3.) ISSUE any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner had filed an application before respondent No. 3 under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act) for declaring 0.809 hectare area of Plot No. 97M for non agricultural purpose which was allowed on 12.1.2000. Seeking recall of this order an application was filed by respondent No. 5 which was allowed on 30.11.2013. Another application was also filed by respondent No. 6 that too was allowed on 16.1.2014. Challenging these orders two separate Revisions were filed before the Commissioner Agra Division, Agra. In the revision filed against the order dated 30.11.2013 an order for maintaining status quo was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division Agra on 17.2.2014 for a period of one month but it was not extended. In the meantime, it appears, an application was filed by respondent No. 5 for demarcation which has been allowed by the Tehsildar. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the revisions of the petitioner are still pending and during the pendency of the revisions the Sub Divisional Officer should not have passed such order. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter at this stage. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 2 to consolidate both the revisions of the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously not later than six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court without granting any unnecessary adjournment to both the parties in accordance with law. In case any adjournment is sought that may be granted only after imposing cost not less than 250/ - per adjournment with the direction to deposit the same by the next date fixed. In the meantime demarcation pursuant to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 5th May, 2014 may be made but it shall not be given effect to without there being any final decision in the revisions.;