Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.2.2008, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia holding the revision filed by the respondents against the order dated 27.9.2007 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as maintainable.

3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the issue raised in the writ petition are; an objection under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by the respondent No. 2 praying that plot No. 603/1 area 40 Are be kept out of consolidation after condoning the delay in filing the objection. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 18.1.2005 condoning the delay in filing the objection directing plot No. 603/1 area 40 Are be kept out of consolidation. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 27.9.2007 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18.1.2005 and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties. Against the order dated 27.9.2007 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the respondent No. 2 filed revision No. 674 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. An objection was raised by the petitioners who were respondents in the revision that the revision having been filed against the remand order, is not maintainable and the question of maintainability of the revision be decided first after hearing the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the parties on the question of maintainability of revision and by the impugned order dated 13.2.2008 held that the revision is maintainable, which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

4. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation contended that the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation being only a remand order, the revision was not maintainable. He submits that remand order is an interlocutory order and revision against an interlocutory order is expressly excluded under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in the cases of Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi, AIR 1981 SC 707; Ajab Singh and others v. Jt. Director of Consolidation and others, 1996 R.D. 104; Rajbir v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1999 (90) R.D. 313; Rajit Ram Singh and others v. Mahadev Singh and others, 2002 (93) R.D. 224.

5. Sri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents refuting the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that appeal having been finally allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation after setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, the order of the appellate Court is not an interlocutory order and the revision was fully maintainable. He further submits that according to Section 48 Explanation (3), the Deputy Director of Consolidation has very wide power and the revision is fully maintainable.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. The only issue which has arisen for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether against an order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, passed in appeal under Section 11 of the Act, remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer, a revision is maintainable under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It is useful to look into the provisions of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before proceeding further to examine the issue. Section 48 of t