The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 3, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha.

2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition is being heard finally without inviting counter affidavit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 144 area 1.1210 hectare & plot No. 243 area 1.3480 hectare of Khata No. 168 situated at village-Gadha Kalan, Pergana & Tehsil-Puranpur, District-Pilibhit was recorded in the name of Lekhraj son of Kehar. Lekhraj had expired on 15.9.2004. Smt. Parvati Devi widow of Lekhraj also expired accordingly, petitioner filed an objection under Section-9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P.C.H. Act”) to record her name as there are no son and daughter from the wedlock of Lekhraj & Smt. Parvati Devi. Respondent no. 3/Har Narayan alias Madho Ram filed his counter objection stating that Lekhraj during his lifetime had executed an unregistered Will-deed on 15.3.2004 in his favour, as such, respondent no. 3 is entitled to be recorded in the place of deceased Lekhraj. A sale deed is also alleged to be executed on 18.9.2004 by Lekhraj in favour of Umesh Kumar & Nitesh Kumar. A Civil Suit No. 152 of 2005 filed by respondent no. 3 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 18.9.2004 was decided vide judgment dated 31.5.2010 on the basis of compromise alleged to take place on 26.5.2010. In the title objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 14 issues were framed and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment dated 29.7.2022 allowed the objection of petitioner and rejected the claim of respondent no. 3 setup on the basis of unregistered Will-deed dated 15.3.2004. Respondent no. 3 filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was heard and dismissed vide judgment dated 28.12.2022. Respondent no. 3 filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 28.12.2022 & 29.7.2022, the same was allowed vide judgment dated 23.1.2024 setting aside the orders dated 29.7.2022 & 28.12.2022 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication of title objection, hence the writ petition for the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.1.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 0024 of 2023 (Hari Narayan Lal alias Madho Ram vs. Jaikaran Lal) under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (contained as Annexure No. 01 to the writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over khata no. 168 Gata no. 144 measuring 1.1210 hectares and Gata no. 243 measuring 1.3480 hectares i.e. total area 2.4690 hectares being situated at Gram Gadha Kalan, Pargana and Tahsil-Puranpur, District-Pilibhit.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the title objection filed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was decided after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in support of their case. He further submitted that the Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection has found the Will deed alleged to be executed in favour of contesting respondent as suspicious, accordingly, ordered to record the name of the petitioner on the basis of succession. He next submitted that the appeal filed under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act by the contesting respondent, was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He also submitted that the revision filed under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has been allowed and matter has been rema