JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.3 to 7.

2. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed herein-under, this Court proceeds to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice to respondent No.8/1 and 9/1, with the consent of the counsel for the parties present and without calling for their respective affidavits.

4. Petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the remand order dated 26.09.222 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur.

5. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the instant writ petition is arising out of proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The names of Nandram, Shivcharan and Mishri sons of Peman were recorded in the revenue record. Objection under Section 12 was filed on behalf of the Maan Singh s/o Mishri (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.3 to 7), claiming his right and title over Khata No.185 being successers of deceased recorded tenure holder namely Nandram and Shiv Charan. The petitioners have filed objections claiming their right and title in the share of Nandram on the ground of succession being daughters of Siya Ram, who was son of Nandram. Consolidation Officer has allowed the objection vide order dated 11.3.2013. Having been aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were preferred on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No.8 i.e. Appeal No.23 (Guddi Devi and others v. Smt. Devki Devi and others) and Appeal No.25 (Nar Singh and others v. Smt. Devki and others). Both the appeals were clubbed together and allowed by the common order dated 27.11.2013 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 7, has allowed the revision and remitted the matter before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the same a fresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to adduce documentary evidence with respect to the date of death of all the three recorded tenure holders. Having been aggrieved against the remand order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners, who are claiming themself to be granddaughters of Nandram.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent enough to decide the revision on merits after re-appreciating the evidence on record as enunciated under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, there is no justification to relegate the parties before the subordinate court i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is further submitted that there is no doubt with respect to the sequence of date of death of the recorded tenure holders, which has categorically been considered and decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, therefore, remand will not serve any fruitful purpose to decide the matter. It is further submitted that order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal, unwarranted under the law, therefore, same is liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra,