JUDGMENT

Rajnish Kumar, J.

Heard, Shri R.J.Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich in Case No.0060 of 2019, under Section 48 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the U.P.C.H.Act) to the extent the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to opposite parties to maintain the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer.

3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was allowed but the appeal was allowed and revision was rejected on the ground that the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act has been issued, whereas the same was filed prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act. The petitioner had approached this court by means of writ Petition Consolidation No.494 of 2015; Mukadam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich/Srawasti and others. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back on the ground that since the objection was filed prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act, therefore the Consolidation Officer would be fully competent to decide the same in accordance with law, whereas after remand the Settlement Officer Consolidation had allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.2 on the same ground by means of the order dated 07.04.2017. On being challenged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the petitioner the revision was allowed by means of order dated 26.05.2018 and the matter was remanded back to decide in terms of the directions issued by this court in Writ Petition Consolidation No.494 of 2015. Thereafter the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal again on the same grounds of issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act and quashed the order dated 14.02.2014 by means of order dated 20.07.2019. Therefore the petitioner had approached to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of Revision No.0060 of 2019. Though the Revision has been allowed, but the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation have been set aside and the matter has been remanded to decide a fresh, whereas the Consolidation Officer had rightly decided the matter by means of the order dated 14.02.2014. Though learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the objection filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of till date on merit and it has always been decided on technical ground of issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act.

4. On the basis of above, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside to the extent it quashes the order dated 14.02.2014 and the matter be remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide a fresh.

5. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that though after remand by this court initially the Settlement Officer Consolidation had decided the matter on the basis of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act, but after remand on the revision filed by the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed the order dated 20.07.2019 on merit after considering the evidence and material on record without taking aid of the Notification unde