JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Shri B. Q. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Udai Bhan Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that in a proceeding for allotment of patta, Khata No.294 having plot nos.357 total area 0.158 hectare and plot no.488 total area 0.129 hectarer recorded in the revenue record as Banjar land. In the year 2000, opposite party no.3 executed a patta of plot no.357 area 0.100 hectare in favour of the petitioner no.1 and plot no.357 area 0.058 hectare in favour of petitioner no.2 in accordance with law for the agricultural purposes. 3. As per version of the petitioners, the said pattas of the land were duly approved by Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 04.05.2000. Since then, the petitioners are in possession over the pattas of the land which was granted in their favour. 4. On 14.08.2001, opposite party no.5 filed a suit under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act for cancellation of patta of land in dispute before the opposite party no.2. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 called the report from the Tehsildar regarding the genuiness of patta executed in favour of the petitioners. On 04.12.2001, Tehsildar submitted his report. After submitting the report by the Tehsildar, petitioners filed their written objections to which opposite party no.5 filed reply against the same. On 20.05.2010, petitioners moved an application with the prayer to call for fresh report regarding the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. However, without considering the same, vide order dated 31.12.2010, learned Additional Collector has cancelled the patta of the land in dispute of the petitioners which were allotted to them. 5. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed revision along with an application for stay before the opposite party no.1, dismissed by order dated 26.03.2012, under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned orders submits that the land in question allotted in favour of the petitioners by way of patta is recorded in the revenue record as Banjar land and as a matter of fact on record, there is no kabar of the ancestral of the contesting respondent on the said land. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned orders submits that the land in question allotted in favour of the petitioners by way of patta is recorded in the revenue record as Banjar land and as a matter of fact on record, there is no kabar of the ancestral of the contesting respondent on the said land. Ignoring the said facts, Tehsildar has submitted his report dated 04.12.2001 inter alia stating therein that on the land in question, there are five kabar kachhi of the ancestral of the petitioners. So, keeping in view the said facts, objections filed against the said report with the prayer that the fresh report may be called. Further, ignoring the said facts, the impugned orders have been passed by Additional Collector, Barabanki thereby cancelling the patta of the land allotted to the petitioners. The said fact has been brought by way of pleadings by the opposite party no.1. So the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad Divsion, Faizabad is in contravention with the material on record and liable to be set aside. 7. Shri Udai Bhan Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in respect of land in question, there is five Kabar Kachhi of the ancestral of the petitioners which is evident from the report submitted by Tehsildar. 8. Keeping in view the said facts as well as averments made by the answering respondent in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit which on reproduction reads as under : - "The contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition are false and misconceived hence denied and in its reply thereto. It is submitted that the the proposal of patta passed by the Land Management Committee against the provisions of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. There is a provision in the said act, the allotment of land firstly land should be vacant secondly after the abolition of Zamindari under Section 117 of of the land should be vested in Gram Sabha, thirdly the land under the possession of Land Management Committee but in the instant case from the perusal of report of learned Tehsildar/tehsil authority the nature of land used as coberistan and chak road. Therefore, it is vacant land. Therefore, it is vacant land. There are priority only the Gram Sabha land for the purpose of the allotment in a order of the preference in following manner (1) Ex-Armyman family member (2) Handicapped Army man (3) Scheduled Caste labour (4) Other labour (5) Small Tenureholder (6) Ex-Army man (7) Freedom Fighter, Scheduled Caste of Gram Sabha, the petitioner not come in the ambit of order of preference because he is belonging from Loniya Caste which is come in the ambit of O.B.C. Therefore the allotment made in favour of petitioner is against the provisions of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act." 9. The impugned orders are perfectly valid and no interference is required needed in the matter in issue. 10. So far as opposite party no.3 is concerned, no counter affidavit has been filed by him in the matter in question. 11. Accordingly, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records as well as taking into consideration the fact that once the petitioners have filed their written objections to the report submitted by Tehsildar in respect of status of the land in dispute, it is incumbent upon authority concerned/Additional Collector, Barabanki to consider and decide the same and verify the status of the land in question. The said exercise has not been done in the present case. 12. Thus, keeping in view the above said facts as well as fact that argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is factual in nature. So it will be appropriate that impugned orders may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Collector, Barabanki to decide afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned by oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 31.12.2010 and 26.03.2012 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Barabanki to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned by oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. The said authority shall make spot inspection himself or through any officer concerned in respect to find out the exact position of the land in dispute. The said exercise shall be done by Collector, Barabanki, expeditiously, say, within a period of one year from today. 14. The said authority shall make spot inspection himself or through any officer concerned in respect to find out the exact position of the land in dispute. The said exercise shall be done by Collector, Barabanki, expeditiously, say, within a period of one year from today. 14. For a period of one year or till the decision taken by the Collector, Barabnki, parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in dispute.