DEENA NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Division Bench has been constituted to consider following t questions referred to it:

(2.) Brief facts of the case, which are necessary to be noted for deciding the above two questions, are; proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were started in the village in which objections under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were filed by respondent No. 2. The said objections were allowed by order dated 18th January, 2005 against which an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by the writ petitioners before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 27th September, 2007 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 18th January, 2005 and remanding the matter before the Consolidation Officer for deciding the objections afresh. Against the order dated 27th September, 2007 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by respondent No. 2. An objection was raised on behalf of the writ petitioners, who were respondents in the revision, that revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is not maintainable since the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27th September, 2007 remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer was an "interlocutory order", the revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. The said objection was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and vide order dated 13th February, 2008 the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that revision is maintainable. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13th February, 2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) The petitioners in the writ petition claim that revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was not maintainable, hence the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set-aside. In the writ petition reliance was placed by the petitioners on three judgments of this Court rendered by different learned Single Judges taking the view that revision against an interlocutory order of remand is not maintainable. The said judgments are Ajab Singh and Ors. v. Jt. Director of Consolidation and Ors.,1996 RD 104 ; Rajbir v. Dy. Director of Consolidation,1999 90 RD 313 ; Rajit Ram Singh and Ors. v. Mahadev Singh and Ors.,2002 93 RD 224. Expressing doubt over the correctness of the aforesaid judgments, two questions, as noted above, have been referred for consideration.