The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri E.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 7, Sri Syed Mohd. Khalid, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 11, 12, 20 & 21, Sri B.N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of plot of Khata No. 206 Situated in village-Thiria Nijawat Khan, Pergana, Tehasil & District Bareilly as well as plot of Khata No. 464 recorded in C.H. Form-45, three sets of objection were filed. First Set of objection was filed by Shafi Raza Khan & others, second set of objection was filed by custodian enemy property and third set of objection was filed by Abdul Wahid Khan. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.09.2015 dismissed the objection of respondent No. 1 and divided the share giving 1/32 share to petitioners and 1/2 share was ordered to be recorded as custodian property. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.09.2015 appeals under Section 11 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act, being Appeal Nos. 90/2015-16 ( Abrar Khan and others vs. Liyakat Khan and others ) and Appeal No. 131/15-16 ( Shafi Raza and others vs. Abrar Khand and others ) were filed by petitioner and respondent No. 1 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bareilly. The aforementioned appeals were heard together and vide order dated 19.05.2016 the Appeal No. 131/15- 16 was dismissed, while Appeal No. 90 of 2015-16 was allowed. Against the appellate orders dated 19.05.2016, revisions under Section 48 U.P.C.H. Act were filed by both the parties, which were registered as Revision No. 2016531213000007 ( Shafi Raza and others vs. Abrar Khan and others ) and Revision No. 2016531213000008 ( Afsar Ali Khan and others vs. Liyakat Khan and others ). The aforementioned revisions were heard by the Deputy Direction of Consolidation, Bareilly, who vide order dated 28.05.2018 allowed both the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 16.09.2015 as well as Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 19.05.2016 and remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer, Bareilly, to decide the matter afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioners for following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in both revision and remand back to the Deputy Direction of Consolidation to decide revision as fresh."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 20.08.2018 and passed the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of amendment of Section 48 Sub Section 3, it is apparent that Deputy Director of Consolidation has power to examine the correctness and propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding either of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.

Matter requires consideration.

Notice on behalf of respondent no. 25 has been accepted by learned Standing Counsel.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 1 to 24 returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken within ten days by registered/speed post.

All the respondents are directed to file their counter affidavits within six week