JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was impleaded as respondent No. 6 in the petition. Order was passed without issuing notice to the present appellant. The order reads as under:

"In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks the following reliefs:

"Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass today, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No. 6.

The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

Writ of Mandamus commanding the official respondents to allow the petitioner to cultivate the suit property by sowing the seeds falling under Survey No. 382 measuring 48 Kanals and 9 Marias, Survey No. 671 measuring 3 Kanals and 15 Marias, Survey No. 671/1 measuring 17 Marias, Survey No. 596, 4 Kanals and 14 Marias, Survey No. 582, 5 Kanals 10 Marias, Survey No. 383, 1 Kanal and 3 Marias, Survey No. 610, 1 Kanal and 17 Marias, Survey No. 393 measuring 4 Kanals and 1 Marias, situated at Village Hubbi Tehsil Kotranka, District Rajouri which is absolutely and exclusively owned and possessed by the petitioner as the private respondents. In connivance with the official respondents are interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and are not allowing him to cultivate the same.

Writ of Prohibition restraining the official respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioner. With regard to the suit property falling under Survey No. 382 measuring 48 Kanals and 9 Marias, Survey No. 671 measuring 3 Kanals and 15 Marias, Survey No. 671/1 measuring 17 Marias, Survey No. 596, 4 Kanals and 14 Marias, Survey No. 582, 5 Kanals and 10 Marias, Survey No. 383, 1 Kanal and 3 Marias, Survey No. 610, 1 Kanal and 17 Marias, Survey No. 393 measuring 4 Kanals and 17 Marias, situated at Village Hubbi Tehsil Kotranka, District Rajouri, which is absolutely and exclusively owned and possessed by the petitioner as the official respondents in connivance with the private respondents are not allowing the petitioner to cultivate the same and are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property."

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of land mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the petition. However, the respondents without any authority of law are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that no action for dispossession of the petitioner shall be taken except in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall not interfere with the cultivation and possession of the petitioner over the land in question, except in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of along with connected MP."

2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner submitted that he has no objection if the aforesaid order is set aside and the writ petition filed by him is dismissed as withdrawn.

3. The aforesaid plea was raised by counsel for respondent No. 1 as the counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1 concealing material facts from this Court. He claimed in the writ petition that he was owner in possession of property as mentioned in the writ petition. Prayer was made that he being owner in possession, his possession needs to be protected. Whereas the fact remains that respondent No. 6 got revenue entries changed wrongly, which was challenged by the appellant before the Revenue Authorities. The same were set aside vide order dated 22.09.2016. Respondent No. 1 filed appeal against the same, which is pending. There is no interim stay.

4. He