JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead concerned Gaon Sabha as one of the respondent and serve the copy of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Heard Sri Shams Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State- respondents and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 3. The petitioners are sixty one in number. They have filed the writ petition seeking writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 20.6.2012 and 11.10.2012 passed in respective cases. It is contended that no opportunity was ever given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order and the petitioners came to know only after recording the order dated 20.6.2012 in khatauni. 4. Learned Standing Counsel states that the petitioners are the asami lease holders, therefore no infirmity can be attached to the impugned orders and further they have got an alternative remedy of revision, therefore the writ petition be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 5. The Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks ( 1998 (8) SCC 1 ) has held that in case the order is without jurisdiction or the same has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice, the writ petition should not be thrown on the ground of alternative remedy, therefore the writ petition is entertained. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 , Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel 1985 (3) SCC 398 , I.J. Rao Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Bibhuti Bagh 1989 (3) SCC 202 , Canara Bank Vs. V.K.Awasthi 2005 (6) SCC 321 , Muzeeb Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1996 (87) RD 66 and Chaturgun Vs. State of U.P. 2005 (2) AWC 1256 , the petitioner is provided post decisional hearing. 7. In this regard, the petitioner may file an application, seeking recall of the orders dated 20.6.2012 and 11.10.2012 accompanied with his objection to the impugned orders, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of the order of this Court. 7. In this regard, the petitioner may file an application, seeking recall of the orders dated 20.6.2012 and 11.10.2012 accompanied with his objection to the impugned orders, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of the order of this Court. In case such an application is filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer Behat, Saharanpur, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned counsel for the parties, after hearing all concerned by passing a reasoned and speaking order, if possible within a period of six months from the date of filing of such an application. 8. It is provided that in case the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute, they will not be dispossessed till the disposal of their applications. It is further provided that in the meantime, no third party right shall be created. 9. It may be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the case and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharanpur is free to pass an independent order in accordance with law on its own merit. 10. With the aforesaid observation / direction, this writ petition is disposed of.