JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi and Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Raj Kumar, counsel for the respondent nos. 7 & 8, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Pradeep Singh, counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had been allotted plot nos. 231, 232, 233, 234 and 236 for the residential purpose on 20.02.2006. The name of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records after the allotment in question. The respondent nos. 7 and 8 who were also allottees in the aforementioned allotment have filed an application dated 3.8.2013 under Section 122C(6) of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act for cancellation of the allotment/approval dated 20.2.2006 before District Magistrate, Bhadohi. The District Magistrate, Bhadohi vide order dated 7.9.2015 rejected the applications for cancellation of the allotment filed by respondent nos. 7 and 8 holding that application has been filed with inordinate delay and also recorded finding that proceedings for allotment has taken place according to Act & Rules. Against the order dated 7.9.2015, respondent nos. 7 and 8 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by cryptic order dated 23.1.2017 allowed the revision without setting aside the findings recorded by the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 7.9.2015. Hence this petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that application for cancellation of allotment has been filed by respondent nos. 7 and 8 after 7 years which is inordinate delay.

4. He further submitted that District Magistrate while rejecting the application for cancellation of allotment has recorded finding of fact that lease was executed after following due procedure as provided under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. He further submitted that according to provisions contained under Section 122C(7) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not maintainable. He further submitted that on the basis of lease executed in favour of petitioners along with others in the year 2006, the parties are in possession thereof and raised construction over the same. He next submitted that the learned Member of Board of Revenue without setting aside the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and without any discussion on the inordinate delay regarding filing of application for cancellation of allotment as well as on maintainability of Revision, has allowed the revision by cryptic order dated 23.1.2017. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition be allowed and the revisional order be set aside and the order of the District Magistrate be restored by which the application for cancellation of allotment has been rejected.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue has mentioned the fact that list of eligible persons has not been correctly prepared, as such the revision be allowed by the Board of Revenue. He further submitted that lease has been executed in favour of the person of particular caste and there are irregularity in the execution of lease, as such the revisional order was rightly passed and in any case matter can be remanded to the courts below for further consideration.

6. I have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute about the fact that the allotment for residential purpose was made in favour of petitioners along with respondent nos. 7 and 8 in the year 2006 and the application for cancellation of allotment has been filed after 7 years in th