The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to examine and decide cases on merits without unnecessary remand, emphasizing the need for expedient resolution of disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ram Asarey Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.

2. Issuance of notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with liberty to the opposite party No.2 to file an appropriate recall application of this order, if aggrieved by this order. It is for the following reason (s) :-

(a) without entering into the merits of the case, in the light of settled principle related to power of Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "D.D.C.") under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), this Court is remanding the matter to D.D.C. for deciding the same on merits;

(b) issuance of notice would unnecessary delay the proceedings in issue; and

(c) the settled principle related to power of D.D.C. under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 could not be refuted by the present opposite parties.

3. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order passed by the opposite Party No.1 dated 14.02.2025 in Revision No. 308/2023 Computer No.202354106400000308 under section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act "Nirmala Devi Versus Kailash" contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commending the opposite Parties not to disturbed the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question."

4. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.02.2025, passed in Revision No.308/2023 (Nirmala Devi Vs. Kailash), under Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953, whereby the opposite party No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Sitapur, 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 relevant portion of the order dated 14.02.2025 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

5. From the order impugned dated 14.02.2025, including the above quoted portion of the same it is apparent that the D.D.C. 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.

6. While assailing the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the order of remand, under challenge, dated 14.02.2025 is unsustainable in the eye of law, in view of the various pronouncements/judgments and language considered under Section 48 of the Act of 1953. As such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

7. In continuation, it is further stated that all the material was available before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Act, 1953 itself provides wide power to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as appears from the language considered under Section 48 of the Act of 1953, including the explanation (s) therein and he ought to have decided the case of the parties on merits after providing proper opportunity of hearing to them. Thus, the opposite part