The orders passed in mutation proceedings do not decide title between the parties, and consolidation authorities are not bound by such decisions.

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respondents No. 15 to 17 are proforma respondents and respondents No. 18 and 19 are the original tenure holders who had withdrawn the appeal.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 moved an application for mutation before the Tahsil-dar under section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, which was allowed. An appeal was filed by the original tenure holders against the mutation order which was partly allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar. Again Tahsildar vide order dated 23. 4. 1991 mutated the name of the vendees. The respondents No. 18 and 19 filed appeal which was dismissed in default on 19. 9. 1991 and a restoration application was filed seeking recall of the order dated 19. 9. 1991. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order dated 29. 1. 1992 that since the village has come under consolidation operation, the proceedings are abated. The petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer seeking mutation of her name on the basis of sale deed whereas the respondents No. 2 to 14 filed objection, seeking mutation of their names on the basis of sale deeds executed by the original tenure holders in their favour on 19. 12. 1984 and 8. 7. 1987. The Consolidation Officer heard the parties and relying on the mutation order, allowed the objection filed by the petitioner directing for implementation of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 31. 8. 1991, passed in the mutation proceedings against which order an appeal was filed by the original tenure holders as well as subsequent purchasers i. e. respondents No. 2 to 14. It has come on record that original tenure holders withdrawn their appeal but subsequent purchasers contested the appeal. The appellate authority by order dated 28. 2. 2007 dismissed the appeal of Ram Gopal and confirmed the order dated 3. 8. 2006. Subsequent purchasers respondents No. 2 to 14 filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide the impugned order remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in allowing the revision and remanding the matter. He submits that against the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, a suit for cancellation was filed which was withdrawn hence, the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself ought to have decided the dispute between the parties as the remand order will further prolong the litigation between the parties, which is going on for the last more than a decade. Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly remanded the matter since no opportunity was given to the subsequent purchasers. He further contends that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation committed error in relying upon the orders passed in mutation proceedings, which is of summa