Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri S.C. Pandey for the Respondent No. 6. Notice has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri D.D. Chauhan for the Respondent No. 5.
(2.) THE contention of the Petitioners is that they were allotted land in dispute vide proceedings dated 24.11.1975. This lease has neither been cancelled nor has been set aside so far. The Respondent No. 6 claims to have obtained the same land through a lease dated 2nd January, 1972 which is alleged to have been approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
(3.) IN the year 1995, the Respondent No. 6 filed a suit giving rise to the present proceedings contending that the Petitioners herein cannot be permitted to interfere with the lease of the answering Respondent which is valid, nor the possession of the answering Respondent can be allowed to be interfered with on the basis of such an illegal lease said to have been obtained by the Petitioners subsequently.;