JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sudhansu Pandey / Sri Manish Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.3 and the learned standing counsel for the state respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khata no. 361, plot o. 111/1M, area 2.68260 hectare, situated at village Majhola, Pargana+Tahsil Chandausi, District Sambhal. Land in dispute belongs to the predecessor of the petitioners and the contesting respondent no.3 who were recorded bhumidhar of plot no.111/1M, area 2.8260 hectare. In order to appreciate the controversy, the family pedigree would be relevant which is as under:-

3. One Ram Prasad, co-sharer filed Suit No.45/35/02, under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which was decided vide order dated 10.5.2002/3.6.2002 in which the partition has been made according to the respective share of the parties. Against the order dated 10.5.2002/3.6.2002, respondent no.3 filed a restoration application on 13.11.2007 which was allowed and the aforementioned suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act has been restored to its original number. Petitioner nos. 5 & 6 challenged the order, restoring the