Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and learned counsel for the gaon sabha.

2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by respondent No. 1 in restoration application No. 11 of 2012-13 (Vishwanath Singh and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate and others) and order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 in revision No. 101 of 2007-08. vide order dated 5.11.2012, revision No. 101 of 2007-08 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, whereas by the subsequent order dated 13.12.2012, restoration application No. 11 of 2012-13 filed by the petitioners has been rejected.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Mahesh Kumar on behalf of respondent No. 3 and he has also filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition may be decided on its own merit at the admission stage without there being any further exchange of affidavits. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioners have filed declaratory suit No. 615 of 1990 under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, claiming their title over plot Nos. 688, 727 and 728 situated in Village Parikhara, Tehsil and District Ballia. The aforesaid suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 30.12.1992. For recall of the aforesaid order, an application was filed by the respondents, which was allowed on 24.3.1998. The petitioners filed a revision, challenging the order dated 24.3.1998 before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The aforesaid revision was dismissed on 23.3.2001. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 16586 of 2001 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 3.4.2003 and the matter was remitted back before the Court concerned to decide the recall application again. After remand, the recall application was again allowed vide order dated 18.6.2008. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed revision No. 101 of 2007-08 before Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad. The revision was admitted and an interim order was also granted on 27.8.2008. In the revision, no counter-affidavit was filed to the stay application. However, the revision came up for final hearing on 5.11.2012 and the same was dismissed on merit in absence of the petitioners’ counsel on the same date after hearing counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have filed application for recall of the order; that too has been rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3 with the allegations that the compromise is forged and the petitioners were evading the hearing of the revision; that is why, the revision was decided on merit in their absence. It is also stated that since the substantial justice has been done, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. It is stated in the affidavit filed in the recall application that the case was listed at serial No. 70 in the cause list, assigned to the learned Member, Board of Revenue. When the petitioners reached in the Court, it was told by the Peshkar that Court will sit at about 12.00 noon. The petitioners, knowing it that their case is listed at serial No. 70, reached at about 02.15 p.m. and it revealed that the case has already been dismissed. It is stated in the affidavit that the counsel for the petitioners had made mention that the case may be heard, but the learned Member, Board of Revenue told for filing a recall application. The petitioners had no escape except to file recall application and the recall application was fil