JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L.P.Mihsra, learned Senior Member of Bar assisted by Sri Rajieu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State of U.P. as also Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7/Land Management Committee concerned.

2. Initially, by means of the present petition, petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the respondent No.4-Tehsildar, Mahsi, District-Bahraich, whereby Tehsildar, Mahsi, directed the Revenue Inspector of the vicinity to take possession of the land (gatas in issue mentioned in the order) and place the proposal of allotment of land to eligible persons, and consequential relief was also sought. Thereafter, the petition was amended. It was for the purposes of assailing the orders dated 14.12.2009 and 24.02.2010 passed by the respondent No. 9-Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and respondent No.10-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahraich, respectively.

3. By the impugned order dated 14.12.2009, respondent No.10-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahraich allowed the application dated 27.03.2008 preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha-Bhabhnauti Shankarpur through D.G.C. Revenue, District-Bahraich as also another application for restoration of the case, which was filed by one Rajit Ram. The order dated 14.12.2009 was assailed by the petitioners in the Revision No. 130, which was filed under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"). The revision filed by the petitioners in relation to the application preferred by D.G.C. Revenue was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.02.2010.

4. It would not be out of place to point out here that the issue related to limitation in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has not been pressed before this Court. It is in view of the fact that the Revision No. 131 was filed assailing the order dated 07.12.2009, whereby the S.D.O. concerned observed that the issue of limitation would be considered at the stage of passing the final order. Thereafter, both the revisions were clubbed and decided by the revisional authority/respondent No.9-Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda by the common order dated 24.02.2010.

5. At this stage, this Court feels it appropriate to reproduce the main relief(s) sought in the present petition:-

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Tehsildar, Mahsi, District Bahraich, as contained in Annexure No.19. (i)(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 14.12.2009 and 24.02.2010 respectively passed by opppartes nos. 9 & 10, as contained in Annexure Nos.15 & 25, respectively.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties, to adhere to the Rules of Law and enforce the same and not to act in violation of the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda, in Revision No. 366 under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, and not to interfere in the peaceful cultivator possession and harvesting the crops standing-over the disputed land of khata no. 172, situate in Village Babhnauti Shankerpur, Pargana-Fakharpur, Tehsil-Mahsi, District Bahraich by the petitioners.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opp-parties, not to destroy the standing crops and tress and also not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land of Khata No. 172, situate in Village Babhnauti Shankerpur, ParganaFakharpur, Tehsil-Mahsi, District Bahraich, and, thereby, not to carry on the proceedings of allotment during the pendency of the Suit."

6. Needless to say that vide order dated 28.03