JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, whereby it is directed that the proceeding of measurement and delivery of possession should not be done until further orders. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he filed Writ Petition No. 6640 of 2014 against some order passed against him by the Consolidation Officer as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation in which interim order was passed staying operation of orders impugned in the same writ petition. The said writ petition is still pending. Subsequently, an order was passed in the reference made under Section 48 (3) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the reference made by the Consolidation Officer. The said order was challenged by the contesting respondents by this Court in Writ B No. 39018 of 2014 in which the implementation of the order impugned passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was stayed. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed in default on 16.5.2018. 4. After the dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioner moved an application for measurement as well as for delivery of possession, the Consolidation Officer has allowed the said application of the petitioner and directed the concerned official to deliver the possession of the disputed land to the petitioner. Subsequently, on the application of respondent no.5, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 7.7.2018 stayed the measurement and delivery of possession until further orders. In the meantime, the order for dismissing the case in default was recalled on 19.7.2018 and the writ petition was restored to its original number. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of the order dated 07.06.2018, possession was delivered to the petitioner on 7.7.2018 as apparent from the report of the consolidator dated 12.7.2018 and on the basis of the impugned order, respondents are trying to interfere with the possession. 6. The order impugned is an interlocutory in nature, whereby the delivery of possession has been stayed until further orders. 6. The order impugned is an interlocutory in nature, whereby the delivery of possession has been stayed until further orders. The petitioner has remedy to approach the concerned Deputy Director of Consolidation either for recall the said order or for passing necessary direction in this regard as possession has already been delivered to the petitioner on the basis of order dated 7.6.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 7. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In case, any application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the impugned order dated 7.7.2018 on the ground mentioned above, the said application be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of the application filed along with production of certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.