VIKRAM NATH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam and Sri Vijay Kumar Tripa­thi, Advocates on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 who have filed their caveats.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed assail­ing correctness of the order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation, Gorakhpur whereby after setting aside the orders passed by the Consolida­tion Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the matter had been remitted to the Consolidation Officer to decide the objections afresh, on the basis of material evidence available on record and in the light of the judicial pronouncements given by the High Court and the Board of Reve­nue referred to in the said order. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the entire material evidence was already on record and there­fore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in remanding the matter to the Con­solidation Officer for a fresh round of liti­gation. Instead the Deputy Director ought to have himself decided the revision on merits, on the basis of material on record. It is further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has ample power to consider the evidence available on record and decide the matter instead of remanding it. It is further sub­mitted that the remand would have been justified in case there was need of any fresh issue being framed and/or fresh, evidence being led. It is not the case here. In the di­rection for remand it is specifically men­tioned that the Consolidation Officer is to decide the objections on merits afresh on the available materials on record and the judicial pronouncements referred to in the order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respon­dents has sought to justify the order of re­mand and according to him, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in case the Consolidation Officer decides the mat­ter afresh.;