Vikram Nath, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

2. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5

3. Pursuant to the sale deed dated 18.11.1989 alleged to have been executed by respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioners, the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.11.1990 passed an order of mutation with the consent of the parties directing for recording the name of the petitioners after deleting the name of respondent No. 5 along with an appeal was filed against the said order by respondent No. 5 along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application of delay was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 50/- by order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.2.1995. Further by order dated 8.2.2005 the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal respondent No. 5 and after setting aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision after affording opportunity of leading evidence to the parties and giving them an opportunity of hearing. Against the said order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 8.2.2005 the petiti