ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Arjun Singh in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda in Revision No. 751/2011-12 (Annexure-1) by which the Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda has rejected the application by petitioner to decide the maintainability of the revision as it has been filed against an interlocutory order. It has been averred in the writ petition and has also been argued from the side of petitiner that Shiv Kumar was erstwhile Bhoomidhar with transferable right on land Gata No. 71 area 0.87 hectare situated in Village Bakhariya, hamlet of Purey Barauli, Pargana Gwarich, Tehsil Tarabganj, Distict Gonda and he has sold the land to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 17.6.1999. Mutation application was moved but prior to passing of the mutation order, the village was notified for consolidation operation on 9.4.1994. During the consolidation proceeding, an order of mutation was passed by Consolidation Officer(final records) Gonda on 24.8.2006 but Mata Prasad Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh moved a restoration application which is still pending. During pendency of the aforesaid proceeding under Section 9A of U.P.C.H.Act Mata Prasad Singh moved another application against which petitioner filed objection. During the pendency of aforesaid petitions, since the matter was pending in two different courts regarding same subject matter, an application was moved for transfer of the proceeding before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Gonda to transfer the aforesaid proceeding from the Consolidation Officer (Naveen) Gonda in spite of knowledge of the pendency of the transfer application the Consolidation Officer (Naveen) hurriedly in a very arbitrary manner closed the opportunity of cross-examination and proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and allowed the mutation application on 3.3.2006 on the basis of a subsequent sale deed. A recall application was moved on the same day and the order was recalled same day. Against the aforesaid order of recall Mata Prasad Singh preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Gonda on 21.3.2006 and the Settlement Officer Consolidation Gonda allowed the appeal vide order dated 29.8.2008 and finding the the mutation order illegal, arbitrary and ex-parte set aside the same along with the order of recall and remitted the same along with the order of recall and remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer for disposal of case on merits. Mata Prasad Singh preferred a revision on 18.9.2008 against the above order and DDC concerned allowed the revision illegally vide order dated 11.6.2010. The petitioner preferred a writ petition no. 459 of 2010(Cons.) before this Hon'ble Court which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 13.7.2010 and the trial court was directed to dispose of the recall application moved on behalf of the petitioner expeditiously. Consolidation Officer without considering the fact that application for recall of the order dated 3.3.2006 has been moved on the same day, rejected the application vide order dated 14.1.2002. Against this order, petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act before S.O.C. Gonda. S.O.C.Gonda vide order dated 7.4.2011 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter again to the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceedings before him on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. Against that order Mata Prasad Singh preferred a revision before Opposite Party No.1 who admitted the same for hearing on 19.5.2011 and notices were issued. After knowledge of this revision petitioner appeared before Opposite Party No.1 and filed an application on 16.3.2012 that the impugned order in the revision is a remand order and no right and issue has been decided, so revision is not maintainable is DDC concerned rejected the application on the ground that the revision has already been admitted and the question of maintainability cannot be decided. In the counter affidavit Opposite Party No.2 has mentioned that DDC has rightly admitted the revision for hearing and passed the impugned order and rejected the application by speaking and reasoned order. The revision is legally maintainable.
(3.) IT was denied a the land in dispute was ever sold to the petitioner by Opposite Party No.3. It was also argued that DDC has ample power under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act to call for and examine the record of any case decided and proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other then interlocutory order passed by such authority in case of proceedings. It was also argued that the impugned order passed by S.O.C. is not an interlocutory order because the appeal has been finally decided by the S.O.C and nothing more was left in appeal to be decided.;