The Deputy Director of Consolidation must exercise jurisdiction to decide on matters without unnecessary remand when evidence is available, emphasizing efficiency in litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel for state respondents no.1 & 2.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition finally, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties who are present in the Court, without calling for their respective affidavits.

3. The petitioners have shown their grievance against the remand order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') whereby original proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been remitted before the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur to decide the right, title and interest of the parties de novo over the property in question.

4. Record evince that respondent no.3 is claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of lease deed dated 01.10.1983 which has been approved by the authority concerned on 15.04.1984. On the advent of consolidation operation, the petitioners have filed an objection for correction of area of plot in question. However, contesting respondent no.3 has filed his objection claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of lease approved on 15.04.1984. After chequered history of litigation, wherein matter has been remitted twice, the Consolidation Officer has finally rejected the application moved on behalf of contesting respondent no.3 with respect to plot in question i.e. plot no.355. The S.O.C., on appeal being filed on behalf of respondent no.3, has affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.08.2023. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the S.O.C., respondent no.3 has filed revision. The D.D.C., vide order impugned dated 13.06.2024, has allowed the revision and relegated the parties before the Consolidation Officer.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that this is third time parties were relegated before the court below to initiate proceeding afresh. The D.D.C. has illegally remitted the matter despite the fact that he has been entrusted ample power under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act to examine the orders passed by the court subordinate. For ready reference, provisions as enunciated under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is quoted herein below :-

"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 other [other than an interlocutory order]² 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 Officer, Assistant Consolidation Officers Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.] Explanation (2).-For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deci