Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No. 15 to 17 are proforma respondents and respondents No. 18 and 19 are the original tenure holders who had withdrawn the appeal.

2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter affidavit.

3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31. 10. 2007 by which the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same on merits after hearing the parties.

4. The dispute between the parties lies in a very narrow compass. The respondents No. 18 and 19 who were the original tenure holders, they executed a power of attorney in favour of one Jagdish Chandra Sharma, who executed sale deeds dated 12. 4. 1983 and 1. 6. 1983 in favour of the petitioner and respondents No. 15 to 17. On the basis of the sale deeds, they