Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Singh Kaushik, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel as well as Sri R.P. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially in the matter in issue an order dated 15.6.2006 has been passed by Tehsildar, Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar under Sec. 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Thereafter, contesting respondents moved an application dated 16.6.2006 for recall of the said order. By an order dated 17.6.2006, the O.P. No. 2 recalled the same. Aggrieved by the said facts, the petitioner filed a revision under Sec. 219 of the Land Revenue Act bearing Revision No. 879 (Raja Ram and others v/s. Shiv Bahal and others), the same was dismissed by order dated 3.7.2006 on the ground that the order under challenge in revision is an interlocutory order, thus, the revision is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said facts, present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
(2.) On 14.7.2006, this Court has passed an order, operative portion quoted as under: - - "Till the next date of listing parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the possession over the land in question and further proceeding in the matter shall remain stayed in the Court below."
(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records, the first and foremost question which is to be considered in the present case whether against the order dated 17.6.2006 revision filed under Sec. 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is maintainable or not?;