The court affirmed the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand cases for fresh decisions when evidence requires further inquiry, underscoring the need for thorough examination before final determinations.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Shri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ankit Pandey for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri Desh Deepak Singh and Ms. Aniveksha Shukla holding brief of Shri Ashish Chaturvedi for the private respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.6.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Raebareli in exercise of power under Section 48 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 remanding the matter back to the trial court for decision afresh.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy in the present case pertains to land situated at Khata No. 282 comprising plot no. 511/1.264 hectare, 2740/0.440 hectare and 298/0.277 hectare, situated at village Ataganj, Usari, Pargana and Tehsil Salon, District Raebareli.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Sadique son of Mohd. Khalique and Shakeel son of Nasir. He has submitted that in the basic year Khatauni the disputed land was initially recorded in the name of Khalique who was survived two sons, namely, Sadique and Nasir. Nasir died in 1979 and was survived of his wife Zohra Bibi and his son Shakeel.

5. According to the petitioner, Zohra Bibi after the death of her husband Mohd. Nasir, remarried with one Aziz Ahmad son of Wajid Ali and after taking divorce remarried on 21.10.1994 with Mobin Ahmad son of Munir Ahmad. It has further been submitted that Shakeel son of Nasir died on 10.11.1991.

6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted that Sadique son of Mohd. Khalique moved an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record on 11.12.1991 and in the meanwhile Smt. Zohra Bibi got her name mutated through P.A. 11 in the revenue record in place of Shakeel Ahmad who has died as a minor. Siddique who is the father of the petitioner had also moved an application on 11.12.1991 for setting aside the order passed in P.A. 11. The Tehsildar by means of order dated 27.11.1992, set aside the order passed by the Supervisor Kanungo in favour of Smt. Zohra Bibi and allowed the application of Saddique as being the heir and successor of Shakeel Ahmad son of Nasir.

7. It has further been submitted that though the order dated 27.11.1992 was challenged by Smt. Zohra Bibi but her name has been recorded for second time through P.A. 11 being the widow of Nasir in place of Shakeel on 3.12.1992 and on the basis of the said entry executed a sale deed in favour of opposite parties no. 3 to 6 on 29.1.1999.

8. It has further been stated that the said village came under consolidation operations by issuance of Notification under Section 4- A of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in the year 2008 and application was made by opposite parties no. 3 to 6 under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 for recording the name on the basis of sale deed executed by Smt. Zohra Bibi in their favour on 29.1.1999. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections on 8.6.2012 and passed the orders for recording the name of opposite parties no. 3 to 6 in the revenue record in place of Shakeel Ahmad. When Saddique the father of the petitioner came to know about the order dated 8.6.2012, he had moved an application for recall and the ex-parte order was recalled.

9. The Consolidation Officer by means of order dat