JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 3, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no.6 as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha (respondent no. 7) and perused the record.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition finally at the admission stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties present without calling for their respective affidavits in the present writ petition (counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit).

3. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the remand order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision no. 0097 of 2017 setting aside the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal arising out of order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").

4. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that the property in question basically belongs to one Jhau Ram, who had two sons, namely, Ram Dayal and Mool Chand. Smt. Prema (predecessor in the interest of contesting respondents) was the real sister of Jhau, therefore, there were three claimants over the property in question namely Ram Dayal, Mool Chand and Smt. Prema. It is case of the petitioners that in the family settlement 1/3 share has been given to Smt. Prema, therefore, contesting respondents cannot claim more than 1/3 share in the property in question which basically belongs to Jhau. Present petitioners are claiming their right and title on the basis of registered will deed dated 22.09.1978 said to have been executed by Ram Dayal. It is case of the petitioners that after death of Mool Chand his share devolved upon Ram Dayal, therefore, 2/3 share belongs to the petitioners and 1/3 share belongs to contesting respondents. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 18.06.2004, has remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh. After remand, the Consolidation Officer has passed fresh order dated 20.06.2016, by which 2/3 share has been given to the petitioners and 1/3 share has been given to the contesting respondents. Having been aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondents have preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 9.10.2017, has dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, has allowed the same and remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer again to decide the case afresh. Having been aggrieved, instant writ petition has been filed against the remand order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that entire evidence was available on record, therefore, there was no occasion for remand before the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent enough to decide the revision in exercise of its power under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. It is further submitted that validity of the will deed has already been upheld by the civil court in Civil Appeal No. 48 of