JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Surendra Kumar Tiwari, assisted by Sri Vishal Khandelwal / Sri Sushil Dubey for contesting respondent no.8 and the learned standing counsel for the state respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.3.2022, passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.17/2008 (Computerized Case No.C2008110017) (Jai Ram and Others v. Ram Das and Others), under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, by which the matter has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the case Under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act on merits, after opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute.

3. Brief facts of the case are that one Phool Singh was the original tenure holder of the plots of khata No.8 and khata No. 10 situated in VillageChitahara, Pargana & Tehsil-Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Phool Singh had three sons namely Goverdhan, Har Narayan and Devi Singh. Petitioners and contesting respondents are heirs & legal representatives of the three branches namely Goverdhan, Har Narayan and Devi Singh. Consolidation operation started in the village in question by way of notification issued on 10.07.1980 under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the dispute regarding the share between the parties was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.03.1986 under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, the shares of the parties were accordingly disclosed in C.H. Form II. The village in question was notified vide notification dated 30.11.2000 under Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Respondent Nos. 4 to 18 filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, claiming share on the basis of order dated 29.03.1986 passed by Consolidation Officer as the order of Consolidation Officer had attained finality before notification of the village under Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Petitioners filed their written statement in the partition suit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 18, taking ground that suit is barred by Section 4 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Trial Court vide order dated 16.07.2008 dismissed the partition suit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 18 as barred by Section 4 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Section -11 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE . Respondent Nos. 4 to 18 challenged the order through revision before Board of Revenue under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act which has been allowed vide order dated 15.03.2022, setting aside the order dated 16.07.2008 and remanded the case before Trial Court to decide the partition suit on merit after hearing both parties by preparing preliminary decree in the light of final order dated 29.03.1986 passed by Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act, filed by the contesting respondent, has been dismissed by the trial court with the finding that the proceeding is barred by Section 4 9 of the U.P. C.H. Act. He further submitted that due to notification issued under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act, petitioners cannot claim benefit of the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 29.03.1986. He further submitted that Board of Revenue has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction. It is further submitted that by the impugned order, the revisional court has illegally interfered with the order passed by the trial court, as such, the impugned revisional order be set aside and the order of the trial court be maintained.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondent submitted tha