JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Shrish Kumar along with Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel have put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 8, whose Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue appropriate order or direction to the Respondent No. 2, i.e. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to decide the pending stay application dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure No. 26) in Revision No. 2267 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. R20241046002267) titled as Azad Educational Society, Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and others, in given time frame, fix by this Hon'ble Court; (ii) Issue appropriate order or direction to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the order passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 2882 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. C202310000002882) dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure No. 23) by means of which the Respondent No. 3 had dismissed the appeal and order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sarojni Nagar, District-Lucknow in Case No. 5084/2021 under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, dated 14/19.08.2023 (Annexure No. 17), till disposal of the stay application which is pending before respondent No. 2, in Revision No. 2267 of 2024; (iii) Issue order or direction restraining the Respondents No. 6 to 8 from demolishing the existing construction made by the Petitioner, and not to interfere with the vacant and peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the Land in question i.e. Gata No. 608 Sa admeasuring 7.2700 Hectare out of total area of 8.785 hectare situated at Village -Natkur, Pargana -Bijnour, Tehsil -Sarojni Nagar, District -Lucknow, U.P. till disposal of the Revision No. 2267 of 2024 before the Respondent No. 2;" 3. Shri Shrish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 has raised an objection that the instant petition is not maintainable for the reason that the prayer as made by the petitioner cannot be granted, since an issue of maintainability had been raised before the Board of Revenue, where the revision, preferred by the petitioner, is pending and since the petition itself before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable, consequently, no direction can be issued for expeditious disposal either of the revision or in respect of the application for interim relief, which is pending before the Board of Revenue. It is thus urged that the instant petition also cannot be entertained and deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in question has a larger dimension. It is urged that the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of the property in question as he had purchased it by various sale deeds. The name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner also was duly recorded in the revenue records. At an earlier point of time, certain litigation was initiated, wherein the entries in the name of the several persons including that of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner was under challenge. 5. The said matter came up before the Board of Revenue, which is the highest revenue authority in the State, wherein an order was passed on 1st August, 1992, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.7 to the petition. It is urged that by virtue of the said order, the rights of the various revisionists before the Board of Revenue which also included that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, their rights were upheld. This order dated 1st August, 1992 was never assailed either by the State or any other authority before this Court or any other higher Court. It is with passage of time that the said order had attained finality. 6. However, on expansion of urban agglomeration, the land in question has come within the limits of the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. 7. This order dated 1st August, 1992 was never assailed either by the State or any other authority before this Court or any other higher Court. It is with passage of time that the said order had attained finality. 6. However, on expansion of urban agglomeration, the land in question has come within the limits of the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, at the behest of the Nagar Nigam, the SDM concerned initiated proceedings under Section 104 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner, the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 was passed, which is brought on record as Annexure No.13 to the petition. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which also came to be dismissed on 18.07.2024 and thereafter the revision has been preferred before the Board of Revenue. 8. It is urged that the State as well as the Nagar Nigam are parties to the said revision and upon the admission of the revision, the Board of Revenue after hearing the parties found that the record of the trial court would be necessary to determine the issue of maintainability. Hence, it summoned the record fixing 10.10.2024 vide order dated 07.08.2024. Since, the Nagar Nigam had issued a demolition order on the basis of the order passed by the SDM and during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority, the said order was not given effect too. Upon the dismissal of the appeal, another order for demolition has been passed in pursuance whereof, it is indicated that in case if the petitioner does not remove his construction within 15 days, the same shall be demolished at the behest of the Nagar Nigam. It is being aggrieved and faced with this emergent situation, the petitioner has approached this Court. 9. It urged that on one hand his revision is pending before the Board of Revenue and the matter is being considered both on the issue of maintainability as well as consideration of the application for interim relief for which the matter has been fixed on 10th October, 2024. However, on the application moved by the petitioner, the date had been preponed and it is now listed on 5th September, 2024. 10. However, on the application moved by the petitioner, the date had been preponed and it is now listed on 5th September, 2024. 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the submission made by the Nagar Nigam to the effect that since the issue of maintainability has been raised and the proceedings are not maintainable, hence, no order for expedition can be passed by this Court and is noted only to be rejected. Once the matter is under consideration before the Board of Revenue in terms of Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and the parties are making their submissions before the said forum clubbed with the fact that the petitioner has also moved an application for interim relief which is under consideration before the Board of Revenue. Needless to say that in case, if any person is availing his right as available to him in law, the same is to be considered and decided by the forum which is seized of the matter. It is a different question to say whether the proceedings are maintainable or not but this cannot be decided merely on the assumption or submission made by one of the party to the 'lis'. It is for the court to decide whether the proceedings are maintainable and that too after hearing the parties concerned. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, rather ends of justice can be met by directing the Board of Revenue to consider and decide the issue of maintainability as well as the application for interim relief on the next date fixed, i.e., 05.09.2024. In case, if it is not possible on the said date then within two weeks thereafter. 12. It is further provided that till the consideration and decision on the application for interim relief or for a period of two weeks from 05.09.2024, whichever is earlier, the construction of the petitioner shall not be demolished. 13. Needless to say that the parties shall cooperate and in case if any of the parties try to misuse the liberty, the court concerned shall be at liberty of passing appropriate orders. 14. 13. Needless to say that the parties shall cooperate and in case if any of the parties try to misuse the liberty, the court concerned shall be at liberty of passing appropriate orders. 14. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and it will be open for the parties to raise all legal submissions as may be available to them in law and it shall be considered by the court concerned who shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance in law. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.