- (1.) RAN Vijai Singh, J. This writ pe tition has been filed against the order dated 2. 7. 2008 passed by Member of Board of Revenue in Revision No. 24 of 2007-2008, Badruddin v. State of U. P. and others. By the impugned order the interim order granted on 6. 12. 2007 for maintaining status quo on spot has been vacated.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel and Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while vacating the interim order dated 6. 12. 2007, the Member Board of Revenue has not recorded any reason and without recording any reason he has vacated the interim order, which has been granted after admission of the revision. In his submission, once revision was admitted after full hearing then the interim order should not have been vacated in this man ner unless some reason is assigned for the same. He has also submitted that the status quo order is being maintained through out and if the order is vacated in the mid way the revision itself will become infructuous.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel as well as Counsel for the Gaon Sabha could not dispute this fact that the interim order dated 6. 12. 2007 has been vacated by the impugned order without assigning any reason. In view of that, the Order dated 2. 7. 2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Order dated 2. 7. 2008 is hereby quashed with the direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision itself expeditiously preferably within a pe riod of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. Till the revision is decided, the interim or der granted by the Member Board of Reve nue on 6. 12. 2007 shall continue.;