Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel agree that the respondent no.3 is the person who had filed the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The order of remand has been challenged by the petitioner alone. Both contesting parties are represented and that the remaining respondents namely respondent no. 4 to 15 are, proforma respondents.

3. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is being decided finally without issuing any notices to the other respondents, who are admittedly proforma parties.

4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 18.11.2016, passed in Revision No.392/909 (Sunita vs. Chandrama and others).

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were two orders, allegedly passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The dispute was that as to which of the two orders was the correct order and which of them was a forgery. This aspect could have been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himse