Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Dubey (Advocate), who appears in person and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.2.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Madiyahun in case no. 5 of 2013-14 (Sabhajit Vs. State), by which the Sub Divisional Officer has directed to issue parvana amal daramad. 3. While assailing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Sub Divisional Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order dated 17.2.2014 in a hotly contested case without there being any notice to the petitioner. It has also submitted that the respondent no. 4, on whose application, the order has been passed, has concealed the material facts and obtained the order dated 17.2.2014. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, a case no. 39 (Sabhajit Vs. State and Others) was filed in the court of Sub Divisional Officer under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 by respondent no. 4. In the aforesaid case, a report was submitted by Naib Tehsildar on 5.5.1984, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure 3 to the writ petition. After accepting the aforesaid report, the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.5.1984 has directed for making entries in the revenue records and consigned the record. As per report, in the land in dispute, names of Sri Sabhajit , Sri Sheshmani Dubey and Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey were directed to be recorded. 5. Seeking recall of this order, Sabhajit has filed a restoration application on 28.2.1992. The aforesaid application was dismissed in default on 24.9.1992. Another restoration application was filed on 22.10.1992. The said application was also dismissed in default on 22.8.1993. Thereafter, the third restoration application was filed on 28.6.2006. In this, the petitioner has filed objection. Although no notice was issued to him, but when he came to know about the filing of the restoration application, he filed objection. Ignoring the objection filed by the petitioner, the restoration application was allowed by the order dated 25.5.2010 by the Sub Divisional Officer. Challenging this order, the respondent no. 5 has filed Writ C No. 33471 of 2010 (Sheshmani Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others). Ignoring the objection filed by the petitioner, the restoration application was allowed by the order dated 25.5.2010 by the Sub Divisional Officer. Challenging this order, the respondent no. 5 has filed Writ C No. 33471 of 2010 (Sheshmani Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others). In this writ petition, notices were issued to the respondents and the operation of the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was stayed with the further direction restraining the respondents from dispossessing or interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the disputed property. However, this writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2014 with the liberty to the petitioner to file appeal/revision against the aforesaid order. While doing so, observation was also made that in case appeal/revision is filed on or before 28.2.2014, the same shall be entertained and decided on merit. 6. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has filed revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which is still pending before Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. In the meantime, the respondent has filed an application on 7.2.2014, for recording his name in the revenue record concealing the earlier facts. On this an order was passed for "put up with file" on 7.2.2014. On 17.2.2014, further order has been passed for issuing parvana amal daramad. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceeding is vitiated on account of concealment of facts. It is also contended that on the same date, the name of respondent no. 4.was also recorded in the revenue record. It is strongly apprehended that in case this order is allowed to be sustained, the respondent shall create third party right over the land in dispute. 8. Considering the facts that in Writ C No. 33471 of 2010 (Sheshmani Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others), there was an interim order passed by this Court, although the writ petition has ultimately been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and the revision has been filed within time granted by this Court, the Additional Commissioner is ceased up with the matter and the stay application filed by the petitioner has not yet been considered, taking that into consideration, it is provided that till the petitioner's stay application filed in the revision is considered, the respondent no. 4 shall not create any third party right over the land in dispute. 9. 4 shall not create any third party right over the land in dispute. 9. Since this order has been passed without issuing notices to the respondents, they are at liberty to seek modification/variation/recall of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation / direction, this writ petition is disposed of. ________________