JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 3.

2. Since the parties have exchanged the pleadings, accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at the admission stage itself.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the DDC, Sitapur by means of which the revision preferred by the private respondent no. 3 has been allowed and after setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Officer dated 16.12.2022 and the order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the matter has been remanded for decision afresh. It is this order of remand which is under challenge in the instant petition.

4. Sri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order of remand passed by the DDC, Sitapur, primarily on two grounds:-

(i) That the matter was concluded by findings of fact which were duly recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and there was no material before the DDC to have taken a contrary view and even otherwise the DDC erred in setting aside the orders and remanding the matter, thereby unsettling a position which had been settled after decades of litigation.

(ii) It is also urged that the DDC, Sitapur committed an error in remanding the matter especially when being the highest court in the hierarchy of Consolidation Court and having powers to appraise both the findings of fact and law, it could have decided the matter itself rather than remanding the matter and too on account of insufficient reasons as a result, the orders passed by the C.O. and the SOC respectively have been set aside resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice. The DDC further failed to notice that the respondent no. 3 admittedly could not establish its nexus with the firm which was the recorded owner of the property in dispute as well as the fact that the petitioners being the successor-in-interest of the legal heirs of the original deceased partner and the property having vested in them which has been unsettled by the order of remand which is bad in the eyes of law.

5. Elaborating his submissions, Sri C.B. Pandey, has submitted that the dispute in question relates to Khata No. 46, 124 and 125 comprising of several plots situate in Village Jamaitpur, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur which was recorded in the name of Firm Ghannumal Bhagwan Das, Sitapur.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that an unregistered firm under the name and style of Ghannumal Bhagwan Das was constituted on 15.01.1950. Both Ghannumal and Bhagwan Das belonged to the same family and a family tree has also been brought on record and indicated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition to indicate that Ghannumal and Bhagwan Das were related to each other as uncle and nephew respectively. (Bhagwan Das was the son of Bandhanmal who was the real brother of Ghannumal).

7. The said firm Ghannumal Bhagwan Das, Sitapur had the following partners namely Seth Ghannumal, Seth Bhagwan Das, Sri Hasanand and Sri Warandmal. It is also the case of the petitioners that Ghannumal and Bhagwan Das were working partners while Sri Hasanand and Warandmal were sleeping partners.

8. As per the deed dated 15.01.1950 placed on record as Annexure No. 4, it would indicate that Ghannumal had a 12.5% share in the said partnership, Sri Bhagwan Das and Hasanand had a share of 31.25% each and Sri Warandmal had a share of 25%.

9. It is also the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid firm namely Ghannumal Bhagwan Das, Sitapur was primarily engaged in Railway contracts to be carried out in different districts of Uttar Pradesh and it also established a brick kiln in Sitapur as part of its business. It has specifically been pleaded that amongst various properties purchased by the firm, the said firm purchased