Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Sri M.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hare Krishna Mishra, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Civil Supply), Allahabad in Revision No. 1059 of 2013. This revision had been preferred by respondent No. 6 challenging an order dated 28.2.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo.

3. Facts of the case briefly stated are that an Aasami Patta of plot Nos. 260/1 and 260/3 was granted in favour of the husband of respondent No. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that once the period of the Patta expired, the land was vacated and remained vacant.

4. In the year 1986, the respondent No. 4 obtained an order from the Consolidation Officer on 1.8.1986 in a case under Section 9A-2, whereby the name of Hari, recorded under class-III, was ordered to be expunged and name of the respondent No. 4, Abdul Hai was ordered to be recorded thereon on the basis of a Patta. It is further relevant to note that respondent No. 4, Abdul Hai, was ordered to be recorded as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights as is clear from the Amaldaramad of this order in the revenue record.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that after having obtained this order, which was absolutely fraudulent, inasmuch as no allotment had been made in favour of respondent No. 4, Abdul Hai, and also because no allotment could have been made in his favour, as he was not a resident of the village and the Gaon Sabha in question, the said Abdul Hai appears to have been executed a sale deed of the property in question in favour of respondent No. 6, who thereafter started raising constructions thereon.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Pradhan came to know of these fraudulent proceedings, he filed an appeal against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 1.8.1986.

7. In this appeal, at a subsequent stage respondent No. 6 was also ordered to be impleaded. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, on a stay application filed by the petitioner, passed an order on 28.2.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo.

8. Against this order of status quo, the respondent No. 6 preferred a revision. Perusal of the revisional order indicates that this revision was filed primarily on the grounds that the order had been passed without hearing the revisionist and that the appeal was belated by 23 years and the delay had not been condoned.

9. On the strength of these two grounds, it was prayed that the order dated 28.2.2013 be set aside.

10. It is also clear from a perusal of the impugned order itself that a specific plea was raised on behalf of petitioner that the order impugned in the revision being an interlocutory order, the revision itself is not maintainable.

11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Civil Supply) allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 28.2.2013 and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to pass fresh orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner, after hearing the concerned parties. Hence this writ petition.

12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire case of the respondents is fraudulent and that the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Civil Supply) should not have entertained the revision, which was directed against an interlocutory order.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 on the other hand submitted that the order calls for no interference because the matter has been remanded back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and it will be open for the parties to raise their respective claims on the merits of the dispute and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

14. At this stage, on a pointed query by the Court, Sri Hare Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the re