JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 5 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.8. Shri Maya Ram Yadav, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos.6 and 7 on caveat. 2. A mention was made before the Court on 27.04.2022 that the matter in question relates to demolition and as such is urgent in nature and may be taken up. Upon the mention being allowed, this matter is placed before the Court today with notice to the parties concerned in the additional cause list-I. 3. By means of the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that proceedings were initiated by the respondents no.6 and 7 under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code against the petitioners. The said proceedings came to be decided against the petitioners by means of order dated 25.01.2019. The petitioners thereafter moved an application for recall of the order dated 25.01.2019 as it was an ex parte order. His application for recall was dismissed by means of order dated 27.01.2021 against which the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, District Gonda. It has also been informed that his application for interim relief is also pending before the Appellate Authority and the matter is listed on 12th of May, 2022 for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet which has been brought on record as annexure no.9 to indicate that since the filing of the appeal on almost all dates fixed on account of resolution passed by the Members of the Bar neither the application for interim relief nor the appeal could be heard and as such the matter remained pending whereas the respondents at whose behest the proceedings were initiated have already put in appearance and filed their objections. 5. It is further urged that on one hand his appeal alongwith an application for interim relief is engaging the attention of the Appellate Authorityand on the other hand the notice has been received by the petitioners issued by the Nayab Tahsildar, Mankapur, Gonda for removal of the offending constructions, failing which, the same shall be demolished. 5. It is further urged that on one hand his appeal alongwith an application for interim relief is engaging the attention of the Appellate Authorityand on the other hand the notice has been received by the petitioners issued by the Nayab Tahsildar, Mankapur, Gonda for removal of the offending constructions, failing which, the same shall be demolished. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court with the limited prayer that till his appeal is decided some interim protection be granted, failing which the appeal in question will be rendered infructous. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents no.6 and 7 has submitted that the petitioners are not interested in getting adjudication on merits;inasmuch as once the proceedings were initiated under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, number of opportunities were granted but he did not contest the proceedings as a result an ex parte order was passed on 25.01.2019. It is after delay an application for recall was moved which too has been dismissed against which the petitioners has filed the appeal and the private respondents are running from pillar to post to get the order executed and now once the order has been passed, the petitioners have rushed before this Court to seek interim protection and under the aforesaid circumstance where there is a clear report to indicate that the petitioners have encroached the land they are not entitled to any equitable consideration from this Court. Consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the merits of the controversy as the same will be subject matter of adjudication before the Appellate Authority. However, it has been informed that the appeal is fixed before the Appellate Authority on 12.05.2022. Hence in the given circumstance where the appeal is listed on 12.05.2022 and the application for interim relief is yet to be heard and disposed of and on the other hand, the demolition notice has been received which is annexure no.1 to the petition. 8. In the aforesaid circumstance, this Court directs that the appeal shall be preponed by the respondent no. 2 and the parties who are present before the Court shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 5th of May, 2022. 8. In the aforesaid circumstance, this Court directs that the appeal shall be preponed by the respondent no. 2 and the parties who are present before the Court shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 5th of May, 2022. Since the appeal is ripe for hearing with the appellate court, accordingly an endeavour would be made by the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal on the date fixed i.e. 5th of May, 2022 and in case if the same is not possible then within two weeks and not later. 9. Till the disposal of the appeal or till 20th of May, 2022 which ever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today. 10. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any adjournment to either party. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.