JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Nazim Ali Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 3 is hereby dispensed with. Liberty is also provided to the respondent No.3 to file an appropriate application of recall of this order, if they are aggrieved by it.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.12.2022, whereby, the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur Kheri remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer concerned for deciding the case afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. The operative portion of the order dated 22.12.2022 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

4. From the order impugned dated 22.12.2022 including the operative portion of the same, quoted above, it is apparent that the Consolidation Officer has to provide only proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and thereafter he has to pass a reasoned order on each issue.

5. While assailing the impugned order dated 22.12.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the order of remand, under challenge, dated 22.12.2022 is unsustainable in the eye of law particularly in view of explanation (3) given in Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1953"). As such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

6. In continuation, it is further stated that all the material was available before the Consolidation Officer and the Act of 1953 itself provides wide power to the Consolidation Officer, as appears from the explanation (3) given under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 and he ought to have decided the case of the parties on merits after providing proper opportunity of hearing to them. Thus, the respondent No. 1 erred in law and fact while passing the order impugned dated 22.12.2022.

7. Sri Pandey, learned State counsel assisted this Court on the issue involved in the present petition. He also could not dispute the power of respondent No. 1 under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953.

8. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In order to decide the present petition, this Court feels it appropriate to reproduce Section 48 of the Act of 1953, which is as under:-

"[48. Revision and reference. - (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order] [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1).

[Explanation.-] [(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation