Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.6.2017 passed by the S.D.M. concerned in proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short ‘Act, 1901’) at the behest of the petitioners herein for correction of records in respect of Gata No. 6 and 23, as also the revisional order dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. The facts material to the case are that the petitioners proposed to purchase the land in question from opposite party No. 4 on the basis of entries in the revenue records in respect of the said land in Khatauni pertaining to 1396 Fasli - 1401 Fasli in his favour. However, in this process they detected that in the Khatauni for the period 1402 Fasli - 1407 Fasli pertaining to the same land, the name of opposite party No. 5 was recorded, therefore, after collecting relevant information they, alongwith the opposite party No. 4, filed an application dated 29.6.2015 under Section 33/39 of the Act, 1901 for correction of the said records alleging the entries in favour of opposite party No. 5 to be fake and fraudulent and praying that the name of opposite party No. 4 herein (applicant No. 3 before the S.D.M.) Jagdish Pal Maurya be recorded in place of opposite party No. 5 i.e. Prem Chandra. In the interregnum, the opposite party No. 4 entered into an agreement to sell the land in question with the petitioners and got it registered on 6.4.2015. The said agreement specifically mentions that possession was not being handed over to the petitioners herein. On enquiry the S.D.M. found the entry in favour of opposite party No. 4 and the entry in favour of opposite party No. 5, both to be of doubtful veracity. Therefore, he did not accept the claim of the applicants for entering the name of opposite party No. 4 in the revenue records, and their application was rejected with consequential direction to the Tehsildar to examine the points mentioned in his order and also the records and submit a report to his Court for correction of records.

4. Against this order of the S.D.M., the petitioners who were neither recorded in the revenue records in respect of the land in question at any time nor have any claim to get their names recorded as they have neither purchased the same as yet nor have succeeded to the holding but have only entered into an agreement to sell executed by the opposite party No. 4, whose entitlement to be recorded in respect of the land in question in the revenue records itself has been found to be untenable, filed a revision before the Commissioner without the opposite party No. 4 joining them in such a revision though he was co-applicant with them before the S.D.M. The Commissioner has considered the application for interim relief filed by the petitioners in the said revision for staying the order of the S.D.M and has rejected it vide order dated 9.8.2017. This order has been challenged in this writ petition but while doing so the petitioners have also challenged the original order of the S.D.M. against which the revision is still pending.

5. A pointed query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he wanted an adjudication on the merits of the order of the S.D.M. also by this Court when the revision is still pending before the Commissioner or would like to pursue the revision before him, as, in the event of passing of an order on merits, this Court would have to touch the question of locus of the petitioners not only before the S.D.M. but also before the revisional Court which in fact has also been touched by the revisional Court in its order dated 9.8.2017 impugned herein, though not in so many words, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Court may pass such order