Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. Notice need not be issued to the resppndents Nos. 2 to 6 in view of the order being passed herein.

3. At the outset learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objec-tion that against the impugned order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj in proceedings under section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the petitioners have got alternative statutory remedy and, therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained.

4. To the preliminary objection raised by learned Standing Counsel, Sri R-K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when there is total violation of principles of natural justice in passing an administrative or-der the Writ Court can interfere in such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such there is no alternative statutory remedy available to would like to pursue

5. According to Sri R.K. Gupta, there are various allegations of mala fide made paragraphs 7 to 13 of the writ petition regarding relationship of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, with a politi