Revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

( 1 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage.

( 2 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 17th February, 1999, passed by the Deputy director of Consolidation, Meerut, respondent No. 1, and the judgment and order dated 26th july, 1997, rendered by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Meerut respondent No. 2, (Annexures-5 and 4 respectively to the writ petition ).

( 3 ) ONE Smt. Murti Devi was the owner of the disputed Chak No. 821, according to the petitioners she executed a Will in their favour on 10th July, 1987, according to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 virendra Singh and Mahendra Singh she had executed a Registered Will in their favour on 9th july, 1987, one day prior to the alleged Will in favour of the petitioners. Both the petitioners and the respondents, on the basis of the Will alleged in their favour, applied for mutation of their names. The Consolidation Officer, Meerut by his judgment dated 12th July, 1993 accepted the claim of the petitioners, and ordered for mutation of the petitioners name. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Consolidation Officer, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred appeal before the settlement Officer (Consolidation), Meerut. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation ). Meerut remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Meerut. Both the petitioners and respondent nos. 4 and 5 had grievance against the said order, preferred revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut, who by a common judgment rejected the petitioners revision and accepted the revision preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and directed for mutation of the names of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 over the disputed plots. The petitioners having grievances against the said order have preferred this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of remand passed by the settlement Officer (Consolidation ). Meerut is an interlocutory order and as such, is not amenable to revision in view of the specific bar envisaged in Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings act. 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only), and as such, the order passed by the Deputy director of Consolidation. Meerut is without jurisdiction. Further, in the revision petition, the deputy Director of Consolidation reappreciated the evidence on the record, for recording findings on question of fact, which is not open to him. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in Ram Avtar v. Ram Dhani, 1997 (2) SCC 263. On the contrary, shri M. K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the revision petition is maintainable, and further, the reappreciation of evidence on the record was open to the deputy Director of Consolidation. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in Preetam Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation. 1996 RD 192, and of this Court in Ram Veer Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, 1999 RD 29 and Man mohan Gopal v. Gram Sabha, Agra Kalan, 1984 RD 208.

( 5 ) SECTION 48 of the Act, which speaks about revision and reference runs as under : "48. Revision and reference.-- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings, taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings ; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order (other than an interlocutory order) Ins. by U. P. Act 20 of 1982 (w. e. f. 20. 11. 1980), passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the pa