AFSAR ALI KHAN Vs. LIYAKAT KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri E.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7, Sri Syed Mohd. Khalid, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 11, 12, 20 and 21, Sri B.N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of plot of Khata No. 206 Situated in villageThiria Nijawat Khan, Pergana, Tehasil and District Bareilly as well as plot of Khata No. 464 recorded in C.H. Form45, three sets of objection were filed. First Set of objection was filed by Shafi Raza Khan and others, second set of objection was filed by custodian enemy property and third set of objection was filed by Abdul Wahid Khan. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 16/9/2015 dismissed the objection of respondent No. 1 and divided the share giving 1/32 share to petitioners and 1/2 share was ordered to be recorded as custodian property. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 16/9/2015 appeals under Sec. 11 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act, being Appeal Nos. 90/201516 (Abrar Khan and others v. Liyakat Khan and others) and Appeal No. 131/1516 (Shafi Raza and others v. Abrar Khand and others) were filed by petitioner and respondent No. 1 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bareilly. The aforementioned appeals were heard together and vide order dtd. 19/5/2016 the Appeal No. 131/1516 was dismissed, while Appeal No. 90 of 201516 was allowed. Against the appellate orders dtd. 19/5/2016, revisions under Sec. 48, U.P.C.H. Act were filed by both the parties, which were registered as Revison No. 2016531213000007 (Shafi Raza and others v. Abrar Khan and others) and Revision No. 2016531213000008 (Afsar Ali Khan and others v. Liyakat Khan and others). The aforementioned revisions were heard by the Deputy Direction of Consolidation, Bareilly, who vide order dtd. 28/5/2018 allowed both the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dtd. 16/9/2015 as well as Settlement Officer, Consolidation dtd. 19/5/2016 and remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer, Bareilly, to decide the matter afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioners for following relief :

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 20/8/2018 and passed the following order :