JUDGMENT : Heard. 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the name of the petitioners were mutated under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by the Consolidation Officer, which on an application filed by the private respondents was recalled. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed. The matter was taken further at the revisional level where the petitioners revision was also dismissed, but, as, consequent to the recall of the earlier order by the Consolidation Officer, the proceedings were still pending, therefore, the parties were given liberty to adjudicate their title before the Consolidation Officer with requisite directions in this regard. Thereafter the private respondents approached the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 where the order was passed on 30.6.2014 in their favour mutating their names in the revenue record, against which a recall application was filed by the petitioners whereupon on 7.5.2016 on the said application status quo was ordered to be maintained and notices were issued. The private respondents filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed. Private respondents being aggrieved filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 wherein the Board of Revenue has passed an order of status quo and has stayed the earlier order passed by the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that so long as the title matter is pending before the Consolidation Officer as aforesaid, there was no occasion to mutate the names of the private respondents and to conduct proceedings under Section 34 of the 1901 Act, assuming that they were maintainable. Issue notice. 3. Operation of the order dated 27.10.2016 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.