With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is being finally heard at the stage of admission itself.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5, Sri Anuj Kumar, Advocate representing respondent No. 4 and Sri Nafees Ahmad, Advocate representing respondent No. 6.

3. The petitioner filed Second Ap peal before the Board of Revenue. Initially the Board of Revenue passed an order on 12th March, 2008 whereby it fixed 25th March, 2008 for hearing the appeal on ad mission and till then the parties were di rected to maintain status quo. Thereafter several dates were fixed and the matter was adjourned and the interim order was continued. On 1st December, 2008, as the learned Counsel for the appellant sought adjournment, whereupon the Board of Revenue fixed 20. 1. 2009 but vacated the interim order. Thereafter, on 20. 1. 2009 again as the teamed Counsel for the appel lant sought adjournment the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the learned Counsel for the appellant has chosen not to argue the case. It is against this order that the present writ petition has