JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parries and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- (i) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the opposite party No. 1 in Appeal No. 20171000536 of 2017, under section 210 of the Land Revenue Act annexed as Annexure No. 1 in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby commanding and directing to the Opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 to restrain the opposite parry No. 7 resuming the construction, over the petitioner's land Khasra No. 368, demarcated by opposite party No. 3 on 21.3.2017 in compliance of order dated 28.2.2017 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No. 4457 (M/B) of 2017, in the interest of justice. (iii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party Nos. 3 and 6 to take legal action against opposite party No. 7 to entering and making construction over the demarcated land of the Khasra No. 368 situated at Village Saleh Nagar, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, in the interest of justice. (iv) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party Nos. 3 and 6 to provide possession to the petitioner on his land Khasra No. 368, under section 24 of the new Revenue Code in compliance of order dated 29.3.2017 passed in writ petition No. 4457 (M/B) of 2017, in the interest of justice. 3. This Court had passed a detailed interim order in this petition on 7.11.2017 which is quoted hereinbelow: "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The petitioner is the owner in possession of Khasra Plot No. 368 measuring 5 Biswa, 1 Biswansi and 5 Kachwansi situated in Village Salehnagar, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow. In the proceedings between the petitioner and one Mangla Devi, owner of adjacent plot No. 367, the land of the petitioner was demarcated vide order dated 8.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow. In the proceedings between the petitioner and one Mangla Devi, owner of adjacent plot No. 367, the land of the petitioner was demarcated vide order dated 8.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow. On 7.2.2017, Kanti Singh-the respondent No. 7, who it is alleged had purchased a part of plot No. 637, with the help of the police, tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over plot No. 368. Having failed to persuade the authorities concerned to take appropriate action in the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 4457 (M/B) of 2017; Kalawati v. Collector Distt. Lucknow & Ors. In the said writ petition an order was passed by this Court on 28.2.2017 directing the Deputy Collector concerned to inspect the spot and execute the order of demarcation. The operative portion of the order dated 28.2.2017 is quoted below: "Having considered the submissions raised, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow namely the respondent No. 2 is under a duty to execute the order of demarcation after confirming it and to fix pillars as per Rule 22 (12) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and is also oblige to take the help of police officials as per sub-rule 15 of Rule 22 in order to ensure the same. The respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5 are, therefore, directed to immediately inspect the spot as per the direction of the Commissioner, which has been endorsed on the application moved by the petitioner on 10.2.2017 and to take appropriate steps and file their affidavit before this Court by next Tuesday. Put up on Tuesday i.e. 7.3.2017." In the affidavit of compliance filed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow it was categorically stated that on 21.3.2017 the order of demarcation dated 8.11.2016 had been executed on the spot and that no construction activity was going on over the plot in dispute. After the respondent No. 7 was restrained from carrying out any construction activity over the plot in dispute, the respondent No. 7 on 15.4.2017 preferred an appeal under section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 against the order dated 8.11.2016. On 8.5.2017, Writ Petition No. 4457 (M/S) of 2017 was dismissed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the appellate authority. On 8.5.2017, Writ Petition No. 4457 (M/S) of 2017 was dismissed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the appellate authority. After the writ petition was dismissed, the private respondent resumed construction over the plot in question. The petitioner again preferred a Writ Petition No. 14607 (M/S) of 2017 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 6.7.2017 with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy available to him. The operative portion of the order dated 6.7.2017 is quoted below:- "As regards the other relief prayed for in the petition that the opposite party No. 7 has resumed constructions on the part of Khasra No. 368 which was demarcated as belonging to the petitioner, is concerned, this is a relief claimed against a private party for which appropriate remedy is available before the Civil Court or the revenue Court, as the case may be, or even before the Appellate Court where the appeal of the opposite party No. 7 is pending where the petitioner may move an application. If any such application has already been filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the Appellate Court, say, within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of." After the order dated 6.7.2017 was served upon the Appellate Court, on the application moved by the petitioner for restraining the respondent No. 7 from raising construction over the plot in dispute, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) has passed the impugned order whereby the operation of the order of demarcation dated 8.11.2016 has been stayed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below has erred in staying the operation of the order dated 8.11.2016. The Counsel submits that the order dated 8.8.2017 has been passed on extraneous considerations. In pursuance of the order dated 28.2.2017 passed by this Court the order dated 8.11.2016 whereby the land in dispute had been demarcated had already been implemented on 21.3.2017 and as such, prima facie, there was no occasion for the Court below to stay the operation of demarcation order dated 8.11.2016. Prima facie, case for interim relief is made out. In pursuance of the order dated 28.2.2017 passed by this Court the order dated 8.11.2016 whereby the land in dispute had been demarcated had already been implemented on 21.3.2017 and as such, prima facie, there was no occasion for the Court below to stay the operation of demarcation order dated 8.11.2016. Prima facie, case for interim relief is made out. Until further orders the respondent No. 7 is restrained from making any further construction and from altering or modifying any existing construction over khasra plot No. 368 mentioned above. Issue notice to respondent No. 7 by registered post A.D. as well as Courier as approved by Office Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 under Order V, Rule 9 (3) C.P.C. returnable at an early date." 4. Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, appears for the respondents. He has pointed out that this writ petition which was filed against the order dated 8.8.2017 in Appeal No. 20171000536 of 2017 disposing of the applications of the petitioner dated 17.6.2017 and staying the order of the demarcation dated 8.11.2016. Later on, the order of demarcation on the basis of which the petitioner had made the prayers in this petition has been set aside in Appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, and he has filed a copy of the final order dated 5.9.2019 passed in Appeal No. 536 of 2017 (Smt. Kanti Singh v. Anil Kumar and others). The order of demarcation dated 8.11.2016 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer to consider afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned. This writ petition, has, therefore, become infructuous and should be dismissed as such. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the order dated 5.9.2019 has been arbitrarily passed and he has filed a Revision against such order which is pending before the Board of Revenue and has been admitted by the Board of Revenue, as this writ petition be not dismissed. 6. This Court has only concerned with the relief clause i.e. prayers made in this writ petition by the petitioner. They related to the interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Appeal and staying the order of demarcation on the basis of which the construction was being raised by the private-respondents. 7. 6. This Court has only concerned with the relief clause i.e. prayers made in this writ petition by the petitioner. They related to the interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Appeal and staying the order of demarcation on the basis of which the construction was being raised by the private-respondents. 7. This writ petition for the relief as claimed hereinabove, has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 8. The petitioner may file a fresh petition challenging the order, if any, passed by the Board of Revenue in the Revision filed by her. 9. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.