SIDHARI Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the caveator -respondents.

(2.) THIS petition arises out of an objection under section 9A -2 regarding land situated in Village Salahabad, District Mau and is directed against the order dated 23.8.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) ON 21.8.2012, the contesting respondents filed a time barred objection under section 9A -2. The Consolidation Officer dismissed this objection on the ground that the objectors were availing two remedies having also filed an appeal and, therefore, held that the objection was not maintainable. It was also dismissed as barred by time having been filed almost two years, after the publication of notification under section 9. The consequential revision filed by the contesting respondents has been allowed, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to frame preliminary issues regarding as to whether any final order was passed in the first round of consolidation operations and also as to whether the said order is forged and fabricated. It has been directed that these preliminary issues be decided first and only thereafter if need arises, other issues be framed and decided. It is this order of remand, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.