JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai for the petitioners; and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 2 of 2013 by which the application 53-Ga of the tenant-petitioners has been rejected. 3. By application 53-Ga the petitioners had applied for local inspection through a court appointed commissioner for elucidating the spot position. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the spot position had come on the record, it would have been helpful and, therefore rejection of the said application amounts to miscarriage of justice. 5. As against the final order passed by the Prescribed Authority an appeal lies under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the appellate authority is empowered to even obtain additional evidence therefore, it is always open to the petitioners to take rejection of his application as one of the grounds in an appeal against the final order. 6. I therefore find no good reason to entertain this petition at this stage. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take rejection of his application as one of the grounds in an appeal against the final order of the Prescribed Authority.