JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary and Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the caveator.

2. The order impugned in this petition dated 23.03.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya in Revision No. 1864/2020530423000014 (Bajrang Pratap Singh and others vs. Jagdamba Singh) is an order of remand, whereby, the respondent No. 1 after interfering in the order dated 22.06.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as also the orders dated 29.06.2016 and 11.07.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer remanded the matter back to the Court of Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Ayodhya for deciding the matter afresh. The relevant portion of the order impugned dated 23.03.2023 on reproduction reads as under:-

^^fopkjksijkar eSa bl er dk gaw fd pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk fufeZr okn fcUnqvksa dh fcUnqokj Li"V foospuk ugha dh x;h gS ,oa vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh ljljh :i ls voj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh iqf"V dj nh x;h gSA bl izdj.k esa eq[; fopkj.kh; fcUnq ;gha jgk gS fd izFke pdz pdcUnh esa mi lapkyd pdcUnh Lrj rd ikfjr vkns'k ds fo#) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa eqΠy[kjkth }kjk ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h vkSj eqΠy[kjkth ds e`R;q ds mijkUr mDr ;kfpdk dh iSjoh fof/kd okfjl }kjk u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k fuxjkuh U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-08-1958 vfUre gks pqdk gS rks f}rh; pdz pdcUnh esa mDr izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr okn /kkjk&11 d o /kkjk&49 tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS vFkok ugha ,oa fuxjkuh Lrj rd ikfjr vkns'k izkax U;k; dk izHkko j[krs gS vFkok ugha A ijh{k.k U;k;ky; dks loZizFke bUgha fcUnqvksa ij lquokbZ djdsa bu fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k djuk pkfg,A bl fcUnqvks ds fuLrkj.k ds mijkUr gh vU; fcUnqvksa ij xq.knks"k ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA rnuqlkj fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

vkns'k

mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 22-06-2019 ,oa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29-06-2016 o 11-07-2016 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k Åij dh x;h foospuk ds vuqlkj iqu% fuLrkj.k gsrq pdcUnh vf/kdkjh lnj v;ks/;k ds U;k;ky; ij izfr izsf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA okn ds fuLrkj.k rd vk/kkj o"kZ dk bUnzkt ;Fkkor jgsxkA i{k pdcUnh vf/kdkjh lnj ds U;k;ky; ij vxzsrj dk;Zokgh gsrq fnukad 18-04-2023 dks mifLFkr gksA i=koyh okn vxzsrj dk;Zdkgh jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj esa laxzghr gksA^^

3. A perusal of relevant observation, quoted above, as also the recitals of the order impugned dated 23.03.2023, this Court finds that the parties to the litigation after remand were not required to adduce evidence in support of their case. Despite this, the respondent No. 1 vide order impugned dated 23.03.2023 remanded the mater back to Consolidation Officer for decision afresh on merits.

4. Sri Khan, learned Senior Advocate while assailing the order impugned dated 23.03.2023 stated that the respondent No. 1 in the given facts and circumstances of the case ought not to have remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh on merits as he himself is empowered to decide it on merits in view of settled legal proposition. In support of his submission, Sri Khan has placed reliance on the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed by this Court in WRIT-B No. 108 of 2023 (Angad Pratap Singh And Others vs. Deputy Director Consolidation/ Addl. District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur Kheri And Others).

5. He further submitted that the Revisional Court/Authority under the Act of 1953 is having wide powers. Power under this section of the Act of 1953 includes power to examine any finding whether it is of fact or law. D.D.C. while hearing revision under this section is fully empowered to reassess the evidence and record its own findings of fact by virtue of Section 48 Explanation 3.