Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) Notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 & 2 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 3, hence notice to opposite party no. 3 is dispensed with.
(2.) Heard Mr. Gur Deo Saran, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mr. Ghurfan Hussain, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 & 2.
(3.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.4.2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 216 of 2001 (Smt. Rama Devi and others v. Prabhu Dayal Manna Lal Trust) as well as the judgment and order dated 15.2.2013 passed in Civil Revision No. 214 of 2007 (Smt. Rama Devi and others v. Prabhu Dayal Manna Lal Trust) whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application moved under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 holding that the property in question is not covered under the provisions of the said Act which is for the purposes of public religious endowment. The revision preferred against the said order has been rejected on merit.;