JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Renewal of lease Heard Sri H.N.Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri P.K.Rai along with Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned counsel who have appeared as intervener. 2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order/report dated 19.9.2013 passed by the Up Zila Adhikari, Bilaspur, district Rampur, order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur and the order/ report dated 11.6.2014 passed by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur, district Rampur by which the petitioners' name have been directed to be expunged from the revenue record on the ground that entries are forged in nature. 3. Vide report dated 9.9.2013 the Sub Divisional Officer has framed nine issues and found that there is no existence of the society on the spot and the persons have illegally occupied the land.In the report it is stated that the land was recorded as non Z.A. since 1360 F to 1362 F. and thereafter the same has been recorded as Sirdar and after that Bhumidhar with transferable right in different khatas. Finally it has been reported that since originally the land was recorded as non Z.A. which has been vested in the State and has illegally been transferred in favour of different persons, therefore, the same may be recorded in its original form. Taking note of the report the District Magistrate vide order dated 12.2.2014 has returned the record with the direction to expunge the names of the persons, whose names have been recorded illegally, in accordance with law. It appears no proceeding was initiated thereafter and another report was submitted by the Tehsildar, Revenue Inspect and Lekhpal and it is on that basis the petitioners' name have been expunged from the revenue record. 4. Sri H.N.Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that initially the society was constituted on 16.9.1952 in the name of Bhaisahib Cooperative Farming Society and in the year 1959 this society was divided into five societies out of which there was one society, namely, Bagadiya Garden Cooperative Farming Society and 887.10 bigha land had fallen in its share. This society was again divided into three societies i.e. the petitioners' societies. This society was again divided into three societies i.e. the petitioners' societies. It is also contended that in the year 1986 notification under section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) was issued and during the consolidation proceedings three separate chaks were carved out in the name of the each society and thereafter the consolidation was denotified under section 52 of the Act on 20.2.1992. and in view of section 27(3) of the Act record of right was also prepared. In his submissions it was never challenged by the State authorities or by the Gaon Sabha during the consolidation proceedings and all of a sudden this proceeding has been concluded ex parte in which at no stage the petitioners have been associated. 5. Sri Rai, learned counsel who appears as intervener submits that the entire submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is based on Bhaisahab Cooperative Farming Society whereas these kind of society was abolished in the year 1966 and therefore in 1984 these societies could not be reconstituted. He has also contended that the ceiling of 12.5 acres of land is equally applicable to the cooperative society also, therefore the petitioners can not have more than 12.5 acres land. He has also contended that all the entries had been recorded without there being any basis fraudulently, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was necessary before passing the impugned order. 6. Learned standing counsel submits that time may be granted to file counter affidavit but considering the fact that the petitioners themselves have stated in paragraph 29 of the writ petition that they have already filed an application seeking recall of the order passed by the Collector I am not inclined to interfere in this matter at this stage. The Collector concerned is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to file their additional grounds/detailed objection in addition to the material earlier filed along with a certified copy of the order of this Court. The Collector is directed to decide the application of the petitioners expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the necessary parties by passing a reasoned speaking order. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. The Collector is directed to decide the application of the petitioners expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the necessary parties by passing a reasoned speaking order. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. It is observed that in the meantime on the basis of the order/report of the Collector no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the petitioners' recall application is decided afresh. It is also provided that in the meantime no third party right shall be created. It may further be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the case and it will be in the sole domain of the Collector/District Magistrate to take decision independently in accordance with law.