BINOD KUMAR ROY AND LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ.

( 1 ) AFTER rejecting earlier the prayer for adjournment made by Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, we heard him and Sri H. R. Mishra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We also put on record that petitions filed for impleadment and vacating interim order, on the ground that the petitioners have based their claim on forged and fabricated papers, have been dismissed for default.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for (i) quashing the Report dated 19. 1. 1988 of the Naib Tehslldar, who has not been impleaded as a respondent and the order dated 20. 1. 1988 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khaga, district patehpur which has not been brought on the record and (iii) to command the respondents not to evict them from the land in dispute.

( 3 ) AT the very out set. It is significant to mention that although the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 20. 1. 1988 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khaga, District Fatehpur, but a copy of the said order has not been annexed.

( 4 ) IN view of the pronouncement of the Honbl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document