Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J. -

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24.04.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C) contained in Annexure No. 1. He further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to maintain status-quo in regard to the possession over the disputed land as per order dated 11.03.2005 passed by the S.O.C. (Settlement Officer Consolidation) and 07.08.1987 passed by the C.O. (Consolidation Officer).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.

3. As per petition's case land of Khata No. 103 situated in village Sikandarpur Amaulia, Paragana Lalganj, district Lucknow was recorded in the name of one Gurudin. After his death name of his two heirs Ishwari and Baiju were recorded. Both were having equal share in the land of this Kahata. Ishwari died leaving behind heir Ghasite his son. As he was minor, Baiju get recorded his name as sole tenure holder taking benefit of minority of Ghasite. Baiju was having three sons, Matroo, Dulare and Lalita. After the death of Baiju, all the three sons were recorded as tenure holder. Further details are given, how many sons all these three have and their names were recored on the land of Khata No. 103 after the death of their father. In 1981, consolidation proceedings started in the village. Heirs of Ghasite filed objections before the C.O. claiming their half share in the property in dispute. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties vide order dated 07.08.1987 Consolidation Officer held that objector/heir of Ghasite has share in the land of Khata No. 103. Aggrieved by this order, respondent nos. 4 to 7 preferred an Appeal before the S.O.C. who after hearing the parties counsel affirmed the order of C.O. and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by this order, a Revision was filed before the D.D.C. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties counsel and perusing the record, learned D.D.C. has allowed the Revision by the impugned order and remitted the matter to C.O. for afresh finding in the matter in the light of the directions given by him in the judgement. Aggrieved by this judgement, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the findings of D.D.C. on the grounds that the D.D.C. was not empowered in Revision proceedings to set aside the concurrent findings of both the courts below. However, if he was of the opinion that both the courts below have not considered the arguments raised by the parties' counsel properly and some important evidence was ignored by the courts below in giving the findings, he himself was empowered to go through the entire record and give his own finding in the matter. No useful purpose is going to be served to remand the matter to the Consolidation Officer again to start second round of litigation between the parties.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, issuing notices to the respondent nos. 4 to 11 are hereby dispensed with subject to this condition that if any application for alteration or modification etc. of this order is moved, that shall be considered.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that giving reasons, learned D.D.C. found that important evidence was ignored by the courts below. some more evidence is required in the matter. Facts and evidence were not properly appreciated by the courts below so he passed the remand order for fresh decision by the C.O. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited case Law 1999 Rajshwa Law Times 184 Ramveer Vs. D.D.C. and argued that under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, D.D.C. is empowered to go through the record himself and in place of remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer, he should have decided the same at his level. Another case law 1996 (87) RD 1992 Pritam Singh Vs. Assistan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document