Hon’ble S.S. Chauhan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Through the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue and the consequential order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.

3. The dispute relates to plots No. 54-M, 62-M, 73 & 99/1 having total area 170 bigha, 3 biswa and 19 biswansi at village Dehli Sujanpur, Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar. In the basic year the land was recorded as Usar and Banjar in 1359 fasli. Proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (for short “the Act”) were initiated by the Tehsildar on the ground that the names of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 have been wrongly and fraudulently recorded in the revenue records and as such, a recommendation was made for expunging the names of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and recording the name of Kanpur Development Authority. The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to expunge the entry in the names of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and the name of the Kanpur Development Authority was entered in the revenue record vide order dated 5.5.1995. Against the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, a revision was filed under Section 218 of the Act by opposite parties No. 2 to 7 before the Commissioner of the Division and the Commissioner vide order dated 30.1.1996 referred the matter to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.6.1996 confirming the order of the Commissioner set aside the order dated 5.5.1995 and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for giving opportunity to opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. After remand of the matter notices were issued to opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and opposite parties No. 2 to 7 participated in the proceedings. The Sub-Divisional Officer on 6.8.1999 maintained the earlier order and came to the conclusion that the sale-deed executed by the wife of ex-barrister A. Hume was not valid sale-deed and is without authority of law and so, no right will accruetg in favour of opposite parties No. 2 to 7. The said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was subjected to challenge before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 12.11.2002 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 6.8.1999.

4. Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue through Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2005 and the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2007. The petitioners thereafter filed a Regular Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (for short the “the Z.A. Act”) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur Nagar, which was numbered as Suit No. 209/64 of 2006 in which written statement was filed by opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and the matter is pending for adjudication before the Sub Divisional Officer. In the meantime, it is alleged that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2005, an application was moved by opposite parties No. 2 to 7 for enforcing the order dated 12.11.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue passed an order on 11.5.2006 mentioning therein that if there is no stay order against the order dated 12.11.2002, heirs of Chhedi Lal, Mahohar Lal and Vijay Kumar sons of Khunnu Lal may be given possession over the land in dispute. As a consequence of the aforesaid order dated 11.5.2006, an order has been passed by the District Magistrate on 18.9.2008.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a notification has been issued by the State Government wherein the land in question has been vested with the Kanpur Development Authority. Opposite parties No. 2 to 7 cannot claim any right against the aforesaid land which has vested with t