Narayan Shukla,J.:- Head Mr. R.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.C.Mishra, learned Standing counsel as well as Mr.U.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5. 2. Being aggrieved with order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich/Shravasti i.e. opposite party no.1 in Revision Nos. 632 and 444 the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. The factual metrics of the case is that on the objection filed by under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act(Hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Consolidation Officer,Ikauna, Shravasti passed the order on 16.3.2010, pursuant to which an order was passed on 7.4.2010 for mutation of names of opposite parties 2 to 4 in the revenue records. The same was mutated on 9.4.2010. Being aggrieved with order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners filed appeal bearing no. 384/09-10 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bhinga, Sharvasti, who passed the interim order on 15.4.2010 staying the operation of order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The opposite parties challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Consolidation,Bahraich/Shravasti through revisions no. 632 and 444 on the ground that the interim order was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to them. 4. The petitioners raised objection against the maintainability of the revisions on the ground that the same were filed against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was interlocutory in nature, therefore, the revision was not maintainable. The revisional court on the premises of some decisions referred in the order impugned maintained the revision and decided the same on merit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional court passed the order impugned absolutely under wrong impression of the decisions referred in the order as none of the order permits to maintain the revision filed against interlocutory order. He further submits that this issue has already been concluded by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Deena Nath and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others reported in 2010 (110) RD 584 : (2010 (5) ALJ 68) in which this court has held that against interlocutory order, the revision is not maintainable. He still raised same argument before this court. 6. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others reported in 2010 (110) RD 584 : (2010 (5) ALJ 68) in which this court has held that against interlocutory order, the revision is not maintainable. He still raised same argument before this court. 6. It is being disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 5 also on the ground that once the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been implemented it has attained finality, this question cannot be challenged at this stage. He invites the attention of this Court towards Section 10 of the Act and submits that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been carried out in the revenue records and in the meantime, there is no provision which gives the way to the higher forum to interfere by way of interim measure. Now in the appeal only the dispute can be determined finally without giving finding at the interim stage. 7. He further submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case only direction has been issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the appeal on priority basis by directing the parties to maintain status quo, which is not harmful to anyone; whereas on the other hand; learned counsel for the petitioners informs that on the basis of entries made in the revenue records the opposite parties are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute and the petitioners have appealed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, which has been stayed. Accordingly, he submits that unless this issue is finally decided by the court of appeal, the right does not accrue in favour of the oppoiste parties 2 to 5 only on the basis of entries made in the revenue records. 8. Upon perusal of the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, I am of the definite view that it is purely temporary in nature. He has not determined any issue rather has stayed only the operation of order to protect the interest of land in dispute, therefore, the decisions referred in the order impugned do not give right to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision on merit against the interlocutory order, but on wrong premises he has entertained so, therefore, I am of the view that it warrants interference of this Court. 9. 9. Therefore, keeping in view the subsequent development, I feel it appropriate to provide at this stage that till final decision of the appeal the parties shall maintain status quo over the land in dispute and the Court of appeal shall proceed to decide the appeal after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 10. Mr. U.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5 submitted that under the provisions of the Act and Rules made therein no officer at any stage has been entrusted the power to pass an interim order. The power is vested to the officer only to determine the question finally without showing interference at the interim stage; whereas I am of the view that once the authority is vested with the power to determine the question finally, it has inherent power to pass the order at any stage in the interest of justice unless it is specifically barred by any provision of Act. 11. Upon perusal of the Act, I do no find any such barring provision, therefore, I am of the view that the consolidation court has jurisdiction to pass the interim order at the interim stage keeping in view the nature of the dispute. 12. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I hereby quash the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich/Shravasti and allow the writ petition.