JUDGMENT By the Court.—This petition by Gaon Sabha challenges the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Beeghapur, District Unnao dated 19.3.08, by means of which he has recalled the ex parte order dated 6.12.07, passed in favour of Gaon Sabha and has directed the parties to appear and file objections. The operation and implementation of the order dated 6.12.07 has also been stayed by him in the meantime. The next order is the order dated 27.3.08 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, by means of which he has directed for execution of his earlier order dated 19.3.08. 2. Sri R.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha has vehemently urged that the private respondents have no right, title or interest over the land in question as the land was given to one Kanhai who was Asami of the said land. Kanhai since died about 15 years back, respondents cannot have any right by inheritance or otherwise. 3. His further submission is that so far the entry of Talaab is concerned, that is perfectly legal. He further says that considerable digging has already been done over the land in question and by virtue of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the work has been stopped. 4. In support of his plea, the learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to an order dated 21.2.78, for emphasizing that Patta of some persons was cancelled on the behest of Kanhai and the land was directed to be entered in the name of Gram Samaj. 5. For assisting the Court, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri D.K. Upadhyaya has submitted that from the record, it appears that Kanhai was claiming his right since before Zamindari abolition and his rights have not been determined by any competent Court, till date. 6. We do not find it expedient to express ourselves on the rights of Kanhai, if any, he had during his lifetime over the land in question or the right, title or interest of the respondents claiming to be his heirs or successors. The fact remains that whether the land belonged to Kanhai and the respondents inherited the same under any provision or law or not are the questions which need be enquired by the revenue Court itself, and the same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. 7. The fact remains that whether the land belonged to Kanhai and the respondents inherited the same under any provision or law or not are the questions which need be enquired by the revenue Court itself, and the same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. 7. The matter requires evidence to be led by the parties and the High Court would not enter into such questions. The right of the petitioner is also not adversely effected, in view of the fact that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has only recalled the ex-parte order passed against the respondents and has given opportunity to the parties to file objections. Once the matter is before the competent Court/authority, this Court will not interfere normally staying the proceedings nor would interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the Court. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file objections and whatever objections are filed, the same shall be considered while proceeding with the matter. 9. The petitioner is also at liberty to move an application for expeditious disposal of the matter and if any such application is moved, we do not have any reason to believe that the matter would not be considered at the earliest, as may be possible. ————