Vijay Narayan Pandey vs Atul Bhusan Hajela & Ors.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.10.2026, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.04 of 2026-2027, Atul Bhushan Hajela Vs. Vijay Narayan Pandey and others, by which, the operation of the impugned order dated 09.06.2026, passed in Case No.30/781 of 2025-26, Vijay Narayan Pandey Vs. Ritu Saini and others, by the Tehsildary, Nainital has been kept in abeyance and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision itself is not maintainable, despite that the impugned order has been kept in abeyance; the dispute relates to three Khasra numbers admittedly, but by the impugned order dated 12.10.2026, the parties have been directed to maintain status quo.

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.10.2026, he is free to approach the Board of Revenue for vacation of the ex parte order.

To it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a long date is fixed in the matter, which is on 15.12.2026. He further submits that direction may be issued that the matter may be heard expeditiously.

The petitioner is always free to approach the court for early hearing or for hearing the matter on the date fixed. This Court has no doubt that since ex parte order is passed, if an application is filed, it will be heard and considered, in accordance with law without any delay.

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.