Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.N. Singh appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Both the Counsel for the parties have agreed that writ petition be finally decided at this stage.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 18.6.2001 passed by Board of Revenue and order dated 1st September, 1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur.
(3.) The case of the petitioners as set out in the writ petition is that the petitioners have filed Suit No. 66 of 1988 for declaration of his title regarding land in dispute and partition. In the aforesaid suit an interim injunction was granted on 7.2.1998. A Revision No. 14 of 1998 was filed against interim order dated 7.2.1998. The aforesaid revision was partly allowed by the revisional Court to the effect that the order, in so far as it create a restrain on right of transfer, is erroneous and set aside but other part that defendants will not change the nature of land was maintained. Against the said order dated 1.9.1998, the petitioners filed Revision No. 32 of 1997-98 before the Board of Revenue. The aforesaid revision has been decided by the impugned order dated 18th June, 2001. Petitioners have also earlier come to this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 23075 of 1999 when the interim order was vacated during the pendency of the revision. This Court has disposed of the writ petition on 15th May, 2001 directing the revisional Court to decide the matter and this Court also while disposing of the writ petition provided that respondents will not make any further transfer of the land in dispute, dated 18th June, 2001. The revisional Court has affirmed the order of Additional Commissioner by which he only maintained the order restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the land. Both the Counsel submitted that his Court may direct the Court below to decide the suit itself since the question of declaration and partition is involved. The parties have been litigating between themselves with regard to interlocutory orders and the matter has once earlier come to this Court. The parties have again come to this Court when the revision has been decided on 18th June, 2001 by which the interim order was partly maintained.;