JUDGMENT : (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead Scheduled Area Regulation Officer (S.A.R. Officer), Ranchi as respondent No. 5 in the cause-title of the present writ petition. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief(s): (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the Notice issued by respondent No. 3 in connection with Eviction (Dakhal-Dehari) Notice Case No. 35/2016-17 as contained in letter No. 164(ii) dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-5), by which the petitioner has been directed to handover the possession of land appertaining to Khata No. 14, Plot No. 29, Area-0.5 kattha to the respondent No. 4 situated at Mouza-Chadri, Thana No. 199. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the notice issued by respondent No. 3 in connection with Eviction (Dakhal-Dehari) Notice Case No. 35/2016-17 as contained in letter No. 328(ii) dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure-7) by which the petitioner has been directed to handover the possession of land appertaining to Khata No. 14, Plot No. 29, Area 0.5 kattha to the respondent No. 4 situated at Mouza-Chadri, Thana No. 199,. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for staying the operation/ implementation/ execution of notice issued by respondent No. 3 in connection with Eviction (Dakhal- Dehari) Notice Case No. 35/2016-17 as contained in letter No. 164(ii) dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-5) and letter No. 328(ii) dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure-7) till disposal of the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 filed S.A.R. Case No. 35/2016-17 under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, in the Court of respondent No. 5, seeking restoration of the aforesaid land. The petitioner appeared in the said case and contested the same. However, vide order dated 13.03.2024, the respondent No. 5 restored the said land in favour of the respondent No. 5 and directed the Circle Officer, Ranchi to ensure possession of the same in favour of the respondent No. 4 with a further direction to remove any structure standing over the land in question after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. 4. 4. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had contested the said case, however, he was not knowing about disposal of the same vide order dated 13.03.2024, about which he came to know only after receipt of Dakhal-Dehari Notice No. 35/2016-17, as contained in letter No. 164 (ii), dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-5), whereby he was directed to handover the possession of the said land in favour of the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred S.A.R. Appeal No. 110 R 15/ 2024-25 on 12.02.2025 in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) along with an application under Order 39 rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction. The said Appeal has been ordered to be listed on 22.04.2025. However, in the meantime, another notice as contained in letter No. 328 (ii) dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure-7) has been issued by the Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi directing the petitioner to handover possession of the land in question to the respondent No. 4 by 11.03.2025 failing which the possession of the same would be handed over to the respondent No. 4 by evicting the petitioner forcefully. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that though the respondent No. 5 had passed order in S.A.R. Case No. 35/2016-2017 way back on 13.03.2024, yet the petitioner chose to preferred Appeal against it on 12.02.2025 i.e., after lapse of about one year and as such, the petitioner can only be said to be responsible for the present situation. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that S.A.R. Appeal No. 110 R 15/ 2024-25 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.03.2024, passed by respondent No. 5 in S.A.R. Case No. 35/2016-2017, is presently pending before the respondent No. 2, which, according to the petitioner, is again coming for consideration on 22.04.2025, the respondent No. 2 is directed to take-up the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 39 rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. along with memo of appeal and after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, pass an appropriate order expeditiously. 7. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question till 22.04.2025, i.e. the next date of listing of S.A.R. Appeal No. 110 R 15/2024-25, in the Court of respondent No. 2. 7. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question till 22.04.2025, i.e. the next date of listing of S.A.R. Appeal No. 110 R 15/2024-25, in the Court of respondent No. 2. It is made clear that the present interim order will only be effective till 22.04.2025. 8. The present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.