SANJAY MISRA, J.— Heard Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 as also Sri D.D. Chauhan on behalf of respondent No. 3 Gaon Sabha. Since all the respondents are represented, notice need hot be issued. 2. The petitioners, who are 15 in number, have filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 3 of 2010-11, Angoori Devi and others v. State. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the said revision was filed by as many as 98 persons and the petitioners No. 1 to 15 herein were revisionists No. 10, 12, 15, 61, 47, 54, 70, 72, 78, 93, 96, 84, 71, 39 and 66 respectively in the said revision. 4. According to him, 26 of the revisionists filed Writ Petition No. 60944 of 2011, Balram and others v. Board of Revenue and others, challenging the said order dated 29.4.2011 of the Board of Revenue. That writ petition was allowed by the order dated 25.11.2011 wherein the order dated 29.4.2011 of the Board of Revenue was quashed and status quo with regard to possession over the land in question was directed to be maintained and the Board of Revenue was required to dispose of the revision itself within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of that order. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioners states that the petitioners in this writ petition were not petitioners in Writ Petition No. 60944 of 2011, Balram and others v. Board of Revenue and others, and were always under the impression that since the order dated 29.4.2011 of the Board of Revenue has been quashed in that writ petition, the petitioners herein will also get the benefit of the said order since they were also revisionists in Revision No. 3 of 2010-11, Angoori Devi and others v. State. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on paragraph 13 of this writ petition to contend that the Tehsildar and the Revenue Officer are not accepting the order dated 25.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 60944 of 2011, Balram and others v. Board of Revenue and others, qua the petitioners herein on the ground that the petitioners herein have not filed any writ petition against the order dated 29.4.2011 of the Board of Revenue passed in Revision No. 3 of 2010-11, Angoori Devi und others v. State, therefore, are likely to dispossess the petitioners herein. A prayer has therefore, be«n madif that the same benefit accorded to Balram & others, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 60944 of 2011, Balram and others v. Board of Revenue and others, be accorded to these petitioners also since they are co-revisionists with Balram and others. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, since the order dated 29.4.2011 of the Board of Revenue has already been set aside by the order dated 25.11.2011 passed in the Writ Petition No. 60944 of 2011, Balram and others v. Board of Revenue and others, and since Balram and others were co-revisionists in the same revision along with the petitioners herein, the benefit of the order dated 25.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 60944 of 2011, Balram and others v. Board of Revenue and others, shall also extend to the petitioners herein. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. No order is passed as to costs. Petition Disposed Of. _____________