NATTHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shadab Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 26/10/2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "DDC"), in Revision No. 264 of 2023, Computerized Case No. 2020531046000052 (Heeralal and others v. Nattha and others) and Revision No. 265 of 2023, Computerized Case No. 2020531046000053 (Baburam v. Nattha and others) filed under Sec. 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

(2.) The respondent No. 1, vide impugned order dtd. 26/10/2023, remanded the matter back to Consolidation Officer Malihabad, Lucknow for deciding the matter afresh, after framing necessary issues and after providing proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The relevant paragraph of order dtd. 26/10/2023 reads as under:

(3.) While assailing the impugned order dtd. 26/10/2023 passed by opposite party No. 1, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, based upon the judgment dtd. 16/5/2023 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 295 of 2023 (Jagadamba Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and others) and the judgment passed in the case of Angad Pratap Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, and others, 2023 (159) RD 223 (HC-LB). submitted that in remanding the matter back before the Consolidation Officer the respondent No. 1/D.D.C. has committed an error in law and facts both. It is in view of Sec. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953') including the Explanation 3 and the law settled in the judgment referred, as according to the same the respondent No. 1/D.D.C. is empowered to consider and decide the case on merits. As such indulgence of this Court is required.