Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.;— Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners contends that challenging the order passed under section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, they have preferred an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P., i.e. Board of Revenue at Allahabad. He submits that his appeal is not being entertained in view of notification dated 8-12-2008 whereby Divisional Commissioner has been delegated the powers of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in the matter upto Rs. 10 lacs. He has placed reliance on the judgement of Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 17-12-2009 in Writ petition No. 6600 (MS) of 2009 Neetu Agarwal and another vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others, in which notification in question delegating powers to Commissioner was subject matter of consideration. Therein, this court has held that as per definition of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in States where Board of Revenue are in existence, power can only be exercised by the said Authority and cannot be delegated to the Commissioner. Counsel for petitioners has also drawn attention of the Court to the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16632 of 2010 whereby the aforesaid judgement of Lucknow Bench of this Court was upheld. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, he submits that it is only Board of Revenue which could decide the appeal and it has wrongly refused to entertain the same, and hence the instant writ petition. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for respondents, I find that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the Board of Revenue is the repository of all the powers of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in the State. In such circumstances, in view of decision of Lucknow Bench and which has been upheld by the Apex Court, in case direction is issued to the Board of Revenue to decide the appeal of the petitioners, no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties. Learned standing counsel states that in view of aforesaid legal position and since no prejudice is going to be caused to the State, in case Board of Revenue is directed to entertain and decide the appeal and therefore, he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition may be disposed of. Learned standing counsel states that in view of aforesaid legal position and since no prejudice is going to be caused to the State, in case Board of Revenue is directed to entertain and decide the appeal and therefore, he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition may be disposed of. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3 to entertain and decide the appeal filed by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law. _____________