JUDGMENT

Rajeev Misra, J.

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing Respondent 5-Land Management Committee.

2. Perused the record.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that he be permitted to implead the NOIDA authority as respondent no.6 in the cause title of the writ petition as well as the stay application appended along with the writ petition.

4. Prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for Land Management Committee.

5. It is accordingly allowed.

6. Let necessary amendment in the cause title of the writ petition/stay application be carried out by learned counsel for petitioner during course of the day.

7. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by Respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 6070 of 2023 (Land Management Committee v. Satvir), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) as well as the order