JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. B. Garg for the Gaon Sabha. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 10-1-1989 contained in Annexure V attached with the writ petition. He has also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus staying the operation of the notice dated 10.1.1989 and staying the petitioners dispossession from plot nos. 374 area 5 Bigha and 402 area 2 Bigha 15 Biswa, situate in village Balwa, Pargana Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, and other. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Gaon Sabha that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the circumstance that the petitioner has not given full facts and has concealed material facts Second submission made on behalf of the Gaon Sabha is that the petitioners claim regarding title is pending before the appellate authority, therefore the petitioner can seek requisite relief before the appellate authority and on the ground of alternative remedy this writ petition should be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that there is no concealment of material facts in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Relevant facts have been mentioned in the rejoinder affidavit and according to him relevant facts for getting relief in the writ petition were mentioned. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I think it proper to direct the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for getting stay regarding dispossession of the petitioner from the disputed plots. 5. It has been brought to my notice that the question of petitioners title to the disputed plots is pending before the appellate authority. Even before the consolidation officer several applications have been moved by the petitioner but they have not been disposed of. It has been complained to me that the consolidation authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the disputed plots without deciding the applications filed by the petitioner. 6. The ends of justice demand that an observation be made to the effect that the consolidation authorities shall proceed against the petitioner in a reasonable manner. Since the petitioner wanted exclusion of the disputed plots on the ground that the disputed plots constitute grove and cannot be subject matter of consolidation scheme, this question need be determined by the consolidation officer. Since the petitioner wanted exclusion of the disputed plots on the ground that the disputed plots constitute grove and cannot be subject matter of consolidation scheme, this question need be determined by the consolidation officer. At this stage the counsel for the Gaon Sabha has stressed that the aforesaid point has been determined by the consolidation officer. However, on materials it has been demonstrated that local inspection was suggested which has not taken place according to the copy of the order sheet attached with the rejoinder affidavit. I think that the consolidation authorities will not dispossess the petitioner till his applications filed before the consolidation officer are decided and the stay matter is dealt with by the appellate authority when the petitioner approaches the appellate authority hereafter. 7. With the above observations this writ petition is finally disposed of at this stage. Copy of this order may be given to the petitioner on receipt of usual charges within 24 hours.