- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24.4.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C) contained in Annexure 1. He further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to maintain status-quo in regard to the possession over the disputed land as per order dated 11.3.2005 passed by the S.O.C. (Settlement Officer Consolidation) and 7.8.1987 passed by the CO. (Consolidation Officer).
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
(3.) As per Petitioner's case land of Khata No. 103 situated in village Sikandarpur Amaulia, Paragana Lalganj, district Lucknow was recorded in the name of one Gurudin. After his death name of his two heirs Ishwari and Baiju were recorded. Both were having equal share in the land of this Khata. Ishwari died leaving behind heir Ghasite his son. As he was minor, Baiju got recorded his name as sole tenure holder taking benefit of minority of Ghasite. Baiju was having three sons, Matroo, Dulare and Lalita. After the death of Baiju, all the three sons were recorded as tenure holder. Further details are given, how many sons all these three have and their names were recorded on the land of Khata No. 103 after the death of their father. In 1981, consolidation proceedings started in the village. Heirs of Ghasite filed objections before the C.O. claiming their half share in the property in dispute. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties vide order dated 7.8.1987 Consolidation Officer held that objector / heir of Ghasite has share in the land of Khata No. 103. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 preferred an appeal before the S.O.C. who after hearing the parties counsel affirmed the order of C.O. and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was filed before the D.D.C After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties counsel and perusing the record, learned D.D.C has allowed the revision by the impugned order and remitted the matter to C.O. for afresh finding in the matter in the light of the directions given by him in the judgment. Aggrieved by this judgment, this writ petition has been filed.;