JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Let the petitioners implead the grand son of Ram Samujh on whose application the impugned order was passed by the Tehsildar as an opposite party in the writ petition during the course of the day. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land in question was purchased by them from the original tenure holder Ram Samujh vide sale deed executed on 29.01.1990 on the representation of Shri Ram Samujh that he belong to Lodh caste and was not a Schedule Caste. The sale deed also contained a recital to this effect that he belonged to Lodh Caste, therefore, believing that the prohibition contained in Section 157A was not attracted they purchased the holding bonafide. However, when presented for its registration certain stamp deficiencies were reported regarding which the proceedings were held which could be concluded only in the year 2000 in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, in 2001 a report was filed by them for mutation of their name before the Tehsildar in terms of Section 33 read with Section 34 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1901. Accordingly, the land was mutated in their favour on 08.06.2009. The grand son of Ram Samujh filed an application alleging that his grand father belonged to a Scheduled Case, therefore, the transfer was void whereupon without issuing any notice to the petitioners the order of mutation was recalled. 4. The contention is that there is no evidence to show that the Ram Samujh was Scheduled Cast and none has been mentioned in the order of recall dated 27.08.2016 which is impugned herein. According to them a revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed wherein also the relevant aspects have not been considered and a cryptic order running into four lines has been passed assuming that it is a case of fraud therefore rejecting the same. 5. The order of the Tehsildar impugned herein by which he has recalled his earlier order does not mention any evidence nor contain a finding that Ram Samujh belonged to the Scheduled Caste, but, it appears that he had proceeded on a presumption rather suggestion of his grand son that he was a Scheduled Caste. 6. 5. The order of the Tehsildar impugned herein by which he has recalled his earlier order does not mention any evidence nor contain a finding that Ram Samujh belonged to the Scheduled Caste, but, it appears that he had proceeded on a presumption rather suggestion of his grand son that he was a Scheduled Caste. 6. Even though, the revisional order is a cryptic order which does not disclose due and judicious application of mind, considering the facts of the case, if, the original tenure holder belonged to the Scheduled Caste then the petitioner may not have a case, as, in view of the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Section 166 read with 167 and the rules made thereunder the holding may have to vest in the State, subject of course to the proceedings being under taken as per law with due opportunity to the petitioners herein to defend themselves, therefore, considering the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to the newly impleaded opposite party no. 4 is dispensed with. 7. The opposite parties are ordered to proceed in terms of Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Rule 151 of the Rules of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 and such other rules, which may be applicable on the subject wherein they shall inquire whether Ram Samujh belonged to a Scheduled Case or not and thereafter, take appropriate steps. 8. Needless to say that if it is found that Ram Samujh was not a Scheduled Case then consequences shall follow accordingly and the authority concerned shall recall the impugned order. However, if it is found that Ram Samujh did belong to a Scheduled Caste, then consequences shall follow as per Section 166 and 167 of the Act, 1950 and the petitioners shall be at liberty to recover whatever consideration they may have paid, from the concerned legal heirs of Ram Samujh and seek such other relief as may be permissible in law. 9. Till final decision is taken in the proceedings by the competent authority as aforesaid the parties herein shall not alienate the land in question. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.