Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abai Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Vishesh Kumar.

2. The predecessors in interest of the respondent Ram Lal had filed a complaint against the patta which was granted in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioner, Late Banshi Lal.

3. The application for cancellation of the patta was rejected on 12.12.1996. However, the revision filed against the order dated 12.12.1996 was allowed on 3.3.1998. When a revision was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.3.1998, the Board of Revenue on 3.4.1998 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. However, on 16.1.1999, the Additional Collector, though had held that the applicant who had applied for the cancellation of the patta of the petitioner himself had no right in the land, cancelled the patta against which Banshi Lal the predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner being Revision No. 401 of 1999, which was allowed and the matter was again remanded back to the Additional Collector for readjudication. The respondent, Ram Lal filed a revision being Revision No. 140 of 1998-99 against the order dated 15.6.1999. During the pendency of the revision, the predecessor in interest of the respondents, Ram Lal died on 7.8.2001 and a substitution application to bring on record the legal heirs and representatives of Ram Lal was filed in the Revision No. 140 of 1998-99 which was ultimately allowed on 8.4.2003 by the Board of Revenue. This order dated 8.4.2003 had been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit at page-27. Thereafter, the revision as was filed by the respondent Ram Lal was dismissed on 7.5.2003 against which a review was filed by his legal heirs and representatives namely, Raja Ram and Ram Chandra.

4. During the pendency of the review petition on 17.10.2003, the petitioner i.e. the patta holder Banshi Lal died and Raja Ram and Ram Chandra, the legal heirs and representatives of Ram Lal filed a substitution application in the review petition which was allowed and Abhay Raj, the petitioner was substituted. The order substituting the legal heirs and representatives of Banshi Lal has been filed on page-30 of the counter-affidavit. At page-35 of the counter-affidavit, a Vakalatnama as was filed by a legal heir and representative of the deceased-Banshi Lal is to be found. The review petition thereafter, was dismissed on 25.5.2005 and, therefore, the matter stood remanded as per the order dated 15.6.1999 which was affirmed in Revision No. 140 of 1998-99 (filed at page-35 of the rejoinder-affidavit).

5. Thereafter, when the matter was pending before the Additional Commissioner, the legal heirs and representatives of Banshi Ram namely Abay Raj filed an application for abating the complaint which had been filed for cancellation of the patta on 22.8.2006. The complainants Raja Ram and Ram Chandra filed their objections to the abatement application on 4.9.2006. However, the suit was dismissed as abated on 30.7.2007 against which order a review was filed by the complainants (the respondents here) on 10.8.2007. On 16.5.2008 the review application was allowed and the abatement order was set aside. On 30.12.2008 the substitution application which was filed by the respondents in the suit was also allowed and the matter was fixed for hearing. However, upon the setting aside of the order of abatement, the petitioners had filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 13.2.2009. Aggrieved thereof, the instant writ petition has been filed. The petitioners have in effect stated that when once the suit/case had abated, then the review should not have been allowed as it was not maintainable and have relied on a Full Bench decision in Shivraji and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, 1997 RD 562.

6. Further the petitioners relyi