JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Srivastava, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, the Gram Panchayat concerned and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the private respondents no. 5 and 6/Caveator. 3. The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court-I, Meerut in Revision No. 182 of 2024 under Section 210 instituted by the respondents no. 5 and 6 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred against the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) II, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 832 of 2024 has been admitted and the effect and operation of the order dated 01.07.2024 has been stayed till the next date of hearing which has been fixed after four months i.e. 12.11.2024. 4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern having business and involvement in landscaping of land and developing nurseries in the periphery of the National Capital Region. The petitioner purchased land bearing Khasra No. 751 area 0.3588 hectare and Khasra No. 758 area 1.7630 hectare contained in Khata No. 130 of village Pipal Heda, Pargana Daasna, Tehsil Dhaulana, District Hapur vide sale deed dated 18.01.2021 and its name was duly recorded in the revenue records. The private respondents no. 5 and 6 are also stated to have purchased land of Khasra No. 751 to the extent of an area of 0.1932 hectares. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute in the instant writ petition is confined to Plot No. 751. The petitioner has got constructed a boundary wall and is using the land purchased as Farm House. Since the petitioner and the private respondents no. 5 and 6 were co-sharers of the Khasra No. 751 though in possession of their respective shares purchased, the petitioner filed a suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for division of the holdings which was numbered as Case No. 4140 of 2023. In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed on 18.12.2023. The Halka Lekhpal pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2023 submitted his report dated 29.01.2024 along with field map proposing the kurras. In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed on 18.12.2023. The Halka Lekhpal pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2023 submitted his report dated 29.01.2024 along with field map proposing the kurras. The petitioner was allotted kurra no. 751/1 while the respondents no. 5 and 6 were allotted kurra no. 751/2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the kurras proposed were against the actual spot position. The land has been bifurcated diagonally which has prejudiced the petitioner inasmuch as it has been deprived of the ingress and egress to the main road and provided outgress to an 8ft. Kachcha road which is unjust and far from the actual spot position which the petitioner is enjoying. The petitioner filed its objections dated 08.02.2024 which did not find favour with by the SDM (Judicial) Dhaulana who vide order dated 18.03.2024 in Case No. 1483 of 2024 under Section 117 of the Revenue Code, 2006 passed a final decree accepting the kurras as proposed by the Halka Lekhpal in his report dated 29.01.2024. Aggrieved by the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 207 of the Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut which was registered as Appeal No. 832 of 2024. Initially, the effect and operation of the order of the SDM dated 18.03.2024 under appeal was stayed and subsequently the appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 01.07.2024 and the matter was remitted back for proceeding denovo from the stage of preparation of preliminary kurras with further direction to the Lekhpal concerned to prepare the map following the provisions of Rule 109 of the revenue Code Rules, 2016. The kurras prepared by the Lekhpal under his report dated 29.01.2024 was set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut partly allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back for preparation of the Kurras following Rule 109 of the Revenue Code Rules, 2016 did not suffer from any infirmity and no prejudice was caused to either of the parties, the respondents no. 5 and 6 have preferred a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue Circuit Bench, Meerut being Revision No. 182 of 2024 which revision has been admitted and the effect and operation of the remand order dated 01.07.2024 has been stayed. 5 and 6 have preferred a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue Circuit Bench, Meerut being Revision No. 182 of 2024 which revision has been admitted and the effect and operation of the remand order dated 01.07.2024 has been stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 109 sub-Clause 5(e), (f) and (g) to submit that possession plays an important role in the allotment of kurras. He further submits that since the Board of Revenue has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 01.07.2024 the respondents no. 5 and 6 taking advantage of the said fact alter the possession of the parties on the spot so as to influence the report of the Lekhpal if the same is to be prepared under the remand order. He submits that his main grievance is with regards to the stay order granted by the Board of Revenue while entertaining the revision. It is accordingly submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be quashed or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents no. 5 and 6 has supported the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court-I, Meerut while entertaining the revision. He submits that the respondents no. 5 and 6 are within their rights to prefer a revision against the remand order. So far as grant of stay of the order of remand is concerned, it is submitted that no illegality or irregularity can be imputed against the order inasmuch as if no stay was granted the authorities would proceed in compliance of the remand order and the purpose of the revision would stand frustrated. He thus submits that no interference is called for by this court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Prima facie, I find substance in the submissions made by the respective counsels. This Court is not dwelling into the respective merits of the case of the parties as admittedly the matter is subjudice before the Board of Revenue in revision. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Prima facie, I find substance in the submissions made by the respective counsels. This Court is not dwelling into the respective merits of the case of the parties as admittedly the matter is subjudice before the Board of Revenue in revision. However, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of finally by directing the expeditious disposal of the revision and meanwhile directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the nature and possession over their respective areas/share of Gata No. 751 subject matter of the proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by expecting the Board of Revenue, U.P. Circuit Court-I, Meerut in seisin with the Revision No. 182 of 2024 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to proceed with and pass final orders with all expedition preferably within four months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court and the parties are further directed to maintain status quo as regards the nature and possession over their respective areas/share of Gata No. 751 subject matter of the revision till the disposal of the revision before the Board of Revenue. The order dated 16.07.2024 of the Board of Revenue impugned herein shall stand modified accordingly. 10. No order as to costs.