R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) Present petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act'. The dispute was. with respect of Khata Nos. 17, 23, 32 and 35 of village Jamalpur, District Jaunpur. In the basic year, both parties were recorded as cotenure holders in the' revenue papers. Subjections were filed by the parties before Assistant Consolidation Officer. Petitioner claimed exclusive rights in the land in dispute but the contesting respondents claimed only co-tenancy rights. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner was exclusive owner of the land in dispute. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the contesting respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the findings recorded by the authorities below, set aside the order and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for decision afresh by his order dated 9.12.1982 with the observation that the practice of fraud was prevalent in the district of Jaunpur. The entries relied upon by the petitioner were farzi and forged. Hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse as they are contrary to the evidence on the record. It was also urged that earlier orders with respect to the land in dispute between the parties have become final, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged that the impugned order is an order or remand, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the same in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that in the present case fraud was practiced upon the contesting respondents as well as upon the authorities and that Sita Ram never filed any objection or appeal nor any revision was filed by him. The entire proceedings, referred to and relied upon by the petitioner, according to him, in his name were fraudulent and farzi. The writ petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.;