S.C.CHAURASIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, Sri R. N. Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri S. A. Jamal, learned counsel for opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 02.06.2010 passed in revision no. 882/08-09 by opposite party no.1, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and the opposite parties may be directed not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the disputed land. The learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the application for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was moved on behalf of petitioners on 28.04.1998 in the Court of Tahsildar, Milkipur, Faizabad, on the basis of sale deed dated 17.09.1990 executed by Sri Sahab Saran in favour of the petitioners and their names were ordered to be mutated by Tahsildar, Milkipur, Faizabad vide order dated 12.06.1998. His contention is that the revision preferred against the said order dated 12.06.1998, has been disposed of, setting aside the said order vide order dated 02.06.2010 illegally and the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 were declared co-tenants illegally and hence, the impugned order dated 02.06.2010 deserves to be set aside.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 has submitted that the proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were pending in the Court of Consolidation Officer for determination of rights and title of the parties and hence, the application for mutation moved on behalf of the petitioners was not maintainable and the orders passed by the Courts below are without jurisdiction.;