Krishna Murari, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. In view of peculiar facts and cir­cumstances and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit and the same is being disposed of without putting the respondents No. 4 to 7 to no­tice. 3. However, their rights to seek clarification/variation/modification in the order are being kept reserved. 4. Facts are that proceedings under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated on an application filed by the respondent No. 4 for correction of record as well as complaint made "by respondents No. 5 to 7 on the ground that the petition­ers and certain other persons are wrongly recorded and in unauthorised occupation over the land in dispute over which pond and 'Bhita' vesting in local body. The peti­tioners contested the proceedings on the ground that the land in dispute was given to them prior to Zamindari Abolition Act was enforced by the then Zamindar. The Collector rejected the claim of the petition­ers on the ground that after 8th August, 1946 the Zamindar was left with no right to execute a lease or transfer the land. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Collector is patently illegal and there is no law which provides that after 8th August, 1946 the Zamindars had lost their right in their estates. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appear­ing for the State respondents has failed to point out any provision before this Court which may go to show that after the said date the then Zamindars had lost their right. However, from a perusal of record, it appears that the petitioners have already filed a revision against the said order along with stay application. 7. Main grievance of the petitioners is that even though the revision has been entertained but no order has been passed on the stay application and taking advan­tage of the fact, the respondents are trying to evict them from over the land in dispute. 8. 7. Main grievance of the petitioners is that even though the revision has been entertained but no order has been passed on the stay application and taking advan­tage of the fact, the respondents are trying to evict them from over the land in dispute. 8. Considering the facts and circum­stances, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the Additional Com­missioner (Judicial), First, Varanasi Division, Varanasi where the revision is stated to be pending, to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 9. Till disposal of the revision as di­rected aforesaid, the respondents are re­strained from dispossessing or interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Petition Disposed of.