Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, who represents respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as perused the record.
(2.) The main grievance of the petitioners is that two Revision Nos. 651/2009-10 and 652/2009-10 were preferred, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in which more or less similar disputes were raised by challenging the order dated 6.6.2008, passed by the Collector, Rae Bareily and the order dated 9.9.2009, passed by the same Officer, that is, the Collector, Rae Bareily.
(3.) As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the Revision No. 651/2009-10 was dismissed at the initial stage, while the other Revision No. 652/2009-10 was admitted, notices were issued and records were summoned on 23rd February, 2010. Now 19th April, 2010 is the next date fixed in the admitted Revision.;