JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri P.N. Singh Kaushik, learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel as well as Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially in the matter in issue an order dated 15.06.2006 has been passed by Tehsildar, Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Thereafter, contesting respondents moved an application dated 16.06.2006 for recall of the said order. By an order dated 17.06.2006, the O.P. No. 2 recalled the same. Aggrieved by the said facts, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act bearing Revision No. 879(Raja Ram and others Vs. Shiv Bahal and others), the same was dismissed by order dated 03.07.2006 on the ground that the order under challenge in revision is an interlocutory order, thus, the revision is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said facts, present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3. On 14.07.2006, this Court has passed an order, operative portion quoted as under: - "Till the next date of listing parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the possession over the land in question and further proceeding in the matter shall remain stayed in the court below." 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the first and foremost question which is to be considered in the present case whether against the order dated 17.06.2006 revision filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is maintainable or not ? 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the first and foremost question which is to be considered in the present case whether against the order dated 17.06.2006 revision filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is maintainable or not ? 5. In order to decide the controversy it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 219 of U.P. L. R. Act which is quoted herein below : - "The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collecotor or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue Court appers to have - (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it bylaw, or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be pass such order in the case as he thinks fit. If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Road Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them." From the bare perusal of Section 219 of U.P. L. R. Act, the position which emerges out is that "the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies." 6. So keeping in view the above said facts, as per mandate of the Legislature as provided under Section 219 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act any order passed in a proceeding held by revenue court subordinate to the opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, revision is maintainable and if the Legislature has legislate as a mandate while framing Section 219 of the said Act, the same should be implemented in its letter and spirit because it is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or re-frame the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words that are not there. 7. The Courts decide what the law is and not what it should be. The Courts of course adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but cannot legislate. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is sub serve of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. (See Union of India and another V. Deoki Nandan Agarwal, AIR SC 96, All India Radio V Santosh Kumar and another 71 (1998) 3 SCC 237 , Sakshi V. Union of India and others, (2004) 5 SCC 518 , Pandian Chemicals Ltd. V. CIT (2003) 5 SCC 590 , Bhavnagar University Vs. palitana Sugar Mills (P) and others, AIR 2003 SC 511 and J.P. Bansal V. State of Rajasthan, 2003) 5 SCC 134) 8. In Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 753 , the Supreme Court has held that the Court can iron cut of the creases but cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain, unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to statute or read something into in which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast the legislation. 9. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain, unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to statute or read something into in which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast the legislation. 9. Thus, in view of the above said facts, an order dated 03.07.2006 passed by the opposite party no.1 holding therein that against the order dated 17.06.2006 passed by the opposite party no.2, revision filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is not maintainable, is contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.07.2006 passed by the opposite party no.1 is set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the opposite party no.1 to decide the revision expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order after hearing the parties concerned. 11. For a period of six months or till the decision taken by the O.P. No. 1 in the matter in issue, parties are directed to maintain status quo, as exits today, in respect of the land in dispute.