Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.10.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Division, Varanasi in revision nos. 43 and 44 of 2013 (Yogesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Suryabali Mishra and Others), by which the interim order granted by the Additional Commissioner on 11.6.2013 has been vacated on the ground that revision nos. 43 and 44 of 2013 filed by the petitioner were defectives. 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, plot no. 40 situated in Village Sagunaha, Post Babatpur, Pargana Kolasala, District Varanasi, recorded as 'Khalihan' was exchanged with the plot belonging to Sri Suryabali, husband of Smt. Sitapati Devi, the village Pradhan. Seeking recall of the aforesaid order, an application was filed by the State Government before the Sub Divisional Officer, which was rejected on 28.5.2010. The State has filed revision, which was numbered as revision no. 10 of 2010, which is said to be pending before the Additional Commissioner. The gaon sabha has also filed revision no. 24 of 2007. The petitioner, who also happens to be member of the gaon sabha, has filed two revisions, being revision nos. 43 and 44 of 2013 (Yogesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Suryabali Mishra and Others); one against the order dated 11.4.2005 and the other against the order dated 28.5.2010, rejecting the application of the State. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for consolidating all the aforesaid revisions before the Additional Commissioner. No order was passed thereon, hence the petitioner filed Writ C No. 48164 of 2013 (Yogesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Varanasi), which was disposed of on 10.9.2013 with the direction to the Additional Commissioner to decide the aforesaid applications within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after hearing all concerned. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application along with certified copy of the order before the Additional Commissioner. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Varanasi), which was disposed of on 10.9.2013 with the direction to the Additional Commissioner to decide the aforesaid applications within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after hearing all concerned. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application along with certified copy of the order before the Additional Commissioner. Since the matter was getting late and there was some apprehension in the mind of petitioner that the Additional Commissioner is siding with the other side, a transfer application was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, which was numbered as Transfer Application no. 01 of 2013-14. On that application, comment was sought for from the Additional Commissioner. In the meantime, it appears, the petitioner has filed an application for correction and in the said application, he has also prayed for staying the proceeding pending before the Additional Commissioner. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has stayed the proceeding of the pending revisions vide order dated 14.10.2013. This order was made subject matter of Writ B No. 58922 of 2013 (Suryabali Vs. Member, Board of Revenue). The aforesaid writ petition was entertained and notices were issued and until further orders of this Court, operation of the order dated dated 14.10.2013 was stayed. Thereafter, this writ petition stood decided by this Court by the judgment and order dated 7.11.2013. This Court has also stayed the further proceeding pending before the Additional Commissioner till the disposal of the transfer application. 4. It appears, prior to that, the Additional Commissioner, vide order dated 13.10.2013, has vacated the earlier interim order granted by him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revisions filed by the petitioner were admitted and the Additional Commissioner has passed the order for maintaining the status quo, therefore, he could not vacate an order of status quo, which is operated for quite long time. However, on being confronted as to whether the revisions were defective or not, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisions were defective, but once the revisions were admitted, the interim order could not be vacated. 6. I am of the view that once the revisions were defective, the revisional court has erred in admitting the revisions and passing the interim order. As such, no infirmity can be attached with the view taken by the revisional court. 6. I am of the view that once the revisions were defective, the revisional court has erred in admitting the revisions and passing the interim order. As such, no infirmity can be attached with the view taken by the revisional court. However, one fact cannot be brushed aside that against the judgment and order in the revisions, two other revisions have been filed; one by the State and other by the Gaon Sabha. The case is that, the land, which is recorded as 'Khalihan' has been permitted to be exchanged by the land of the sitting Pradhan's husband. This fact has to be ascertained and in case, in the meantime, any substantial change is made or third party right is created, there will be further inconvenience. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the transfer application has been allowed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue by the judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 and the matter has now been transferred to the Court of Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 7. Taking note of this fact, the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi is directed to decide the petitioner's application for consolidating the revision nos. 43 and 44 of 2013 (Yogesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Suryabali Mishra and Others) and the aforesaid revisions be decided on merit. The petitioner is also directed to remove the defect in the revisions with the permissions of learned Commissioner and he is at liberty to file a fresh application for appropriate interim order before the learned Additional Commissioner. In case such an application is filed within a period of three weeks from today, that may also be considered in accordance with law. 8. Till the aforesaid application is considered, neither any third party right shall be created nor the nature of the land shall be changed. 9. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the Collector, Varanasi Division, Varanasi so that he shall look into the matter and issue appropriate direction upon the learned DGC (Revenue) to look into the matter and do needful in accordance with law so that the interest of State and gaon sabha be protected. 10. With the aforesaid observation / direction, this writ petition is disposed of. _____________