The validity of the remand order and the maintainability of the application for correction of map under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act were the central legal points established in the judgment.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-7-2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition), whereby the revision filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against the petitioner was allowed and the orders dated 10-6-2004 and 11-10- 2004 passed by Collector Haridwar in Case No. 15 of 2003 and Case No. 2 of 2001 were set aside the Collector was directed to dispose of the matter in the light of earlier order dated 28-7- 2003 and as per law. After the remand order, the Collector decided the Case No. 2/2000-01 under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act on 22-11-2005 and on the basis of Tahsildar report dated 27-1-2001, Sazara (map) has been amended. The petitioner did not challenge this order of the Collector by filing a revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act. The petitioner sought for quashing the remand order passed by the learned Commissioner Garhwal Division on the ground that the remand order is bad in law and subsequent proceedings are non est.

2. Relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 Pradeep Kumar and others had filed a case under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act for correction of map in the year 2000. The application for correction was allowed by the Collector, Haridwar vide his order dated 14-3-2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred a Revision No. 19/2000-2001, Ved Singh v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. , which was allowed vide order dated 6-5-2002 by the Commissioner Garhwal Division and the case was remanded to the Collector Haridwar with a direction to decide the matter of correction of disputed Sazara afresh in accordance with law. After remand of the case, the Collector proceeded to decide the matter afresh in the light of the Revisional Courts order. After remand, the Collector Haridwar has rejected the application of correction of map vide his order dated 5-12-2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 preferred a Revision No. 11/2002-03 which was

allowed vide order dated 28-7-2003 by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and again remanded the case for fresh decision in view of the observations made in Revisional Courts order. After remand order, the Collector again decided the case and held that the village is under consolidation and the Notification under Section 4 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been published, hence the proceedings of the case are abated till the order passed in Writ Petition No. 39153 of 2000, Bijendra Singh v. State, vide order dated 10-6-2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed a Revision No. 1 of 2004-2005 before the respondent No. 1 on the ground that a Writ Petition No. 39153 of 2000 (new No. 774 of 2001) is pending for quashing the Notification of Section 4 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding village concerned and the effect of the Notification by the Honble High Court was stayed, therefore, the proceeding must continue. The order of the Honble High Court is clear. The respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 21-7-2005 has allowed the revision filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and set aside the order dated 10-6-2004 and 11-10-2004.

3. I have heard Sri Lokpal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Sri Alok Singh assisted by Sri Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate, for the contesting respondents and perused the impugned order.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Lokpal Singh has submitted that once the village has been notified under Section 4 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Revenue Court seized its jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further contended that the revision was not maintainable against the order dated 10-6- 2004. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. On the other