JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rudreshwari Prasad and Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent no.1 and perused the record.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order proposed to be passed hereinunder as well as with the consent of the parties, this Court proceeded to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without calling for their respective affidavits, i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, with liberty to the contesting respondents to move a recall application, in case, any fact is found incorrect.

3. Under challenge in the present writ petition is order dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure-18) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity ‘D.D.C.’) (respondent no.1) in Revision No.2019530633000004 (Jagram vs. Balram) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity ‘U.P.C.H. Act’).

4. Present writ petition is arising out of a proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Land in dispute was recorded in the name of Balle, who died on 14.02.1978. Smt. Bhura wife of Balle has moved an application dated 05.04.1978 (Annexure-3) for recording name of her son Balram (respondent no.3) in place of recorded tenure holder, Balle. Aforesaid application moved by Smt. Bhura (mother of respondent no.3) was allowed vide order dated 26.07.1978 (Annexure-4) passed by Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.') directing to record the name of Balram (respondent no.3) under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Bhura alias Badi Bahu. At a belated stage, Jagram (predecessor in interest of respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2) have filed an appeal dated 26.07.1994 (Annexure-6) before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity ‘S.O.C.’) on the ground that he is also one of the son of recorded tenure holder Balle, but his mother has deliberately ignored him in mutating his name in the Revenue Record along with his brother Balram in place of his deceased father. Aforesaid appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.1998 (Annexure-7) on the ground of laches. Feeling aggrieved, Jagram has preferred revision before respondent no.1, who has dismissed the same vide its order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure-16). Respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 (heirs and legal representatives of Jagram) have filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court against the order dated 12.02.2019, which was registered as Writ B no.950 of 2019 (Ramu Kushwaha and another vs. Balram and others). Aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure-17) remitting the matter back before respondent no.1 to decide the revision afresh. After remand, respondent no.1 has allowed the revision vide order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-18), which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Present petitioner is claiming his right and title over the property in question being a bonafide purchaser from Balram (respondent no.3) who has executed the registered sale deed in favour of present petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid sale deed, mutation order dated 22.02.1989 was passed in favour of petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.1 has illegally allowed the revision and remitted the matter before the ‘C.O.’ for deciding it afresh, whereas the limited question was involved in the revision with respect to the merits of delay condonation application, which was rejected by the S.O.C. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 has illegally entered into the merits of the case and accidentally given some observation with respect to genuineness of Jagram, being son of Balle which can affect the merits of the case before the C.O. It is further submitted that Notification under section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act was promulgated on 10.02.1973 with respect to the aforesaid land in question and the