ORDER : S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J. The present petition has been filed seeking for setting aside of the order of the Assistant Commissioner in case No.K.SC-ST(S)26/2017-18. Petitioners have also sought for a direction to hold inquiry in the matter against respondents 4 and 5. 2. It is noticed that petitioners have sought to implead additional applicants as petitioners. In that regard, I.A. No. 2/2024 has been filed seeking to implead 4 applicants as additional petitioners. I.A.1/2025 has been filed on 19.02.2025 seeking to implead applicants 1 to 26 as additional petitioners. 3. In light of the averments that these applicants would be aggrieved parties, I.A. No. 2/2024 and I.A.1/2025 are allowed and the applicants are permitted to come on record as additional petitioners. Necessary amendment to be carried out to the cause title and amended cause title to be filed. 4. It is noticed that the order impugned i.e. the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 23.09.2021 was the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 20137/2021 and the said order has been set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration before the Assistant Commissioner. The operative portion of the order passed in W.P. No. 20137/2021 at Paras 7(i) to 7(v) reads as follows: "(i) Writ petition is allowed (ii) The impugned Order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the 2 nd respondent/ Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed. (iii) The 2 nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, before proceeding to order for restoration of land, needs to examine whether grantees have substantiated that land in question is granted land. Even if land is found to be granted land, Assistant Commissioner has to examine the law laid down by the Apex Court in regard to doctrine of reasonable period and thereafter, proceed to examine as to whether restoration application in the present case on hand can be entertained and consequently, restoration can be ordered. (iv) There is delay of 72 years in seeking restoration. Therefore, parties are directed to maintain status quo in regard to entries and possession as on the date of filing of restoration application. (v) The matter is remitted to Assistant Commissioner, who is directed to pass orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 5. Accordingly, the present petition would not call for adjudication. (v) The matter is remitted to Assistant Commissioner, who is directed to pass orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 5. Accordingly, the present petition would not call for adjudication. While keeping open all contentions raised by the petitioners herein to be raised before the Assistant Commissioner, if application is filed for impleading before the Assistant Commissioner, the same may be considered taking note of the contentions raised in the present petition. 6. In light of the above, petition is disposed of Needless to state, status quo regarding possession as on date to be maintained, as petitioners specifically assert that they are the site holders and are in possession. This order of status quo, needless to state would continue till final orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner.