Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.S. Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.11.1980 by which the matter has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh. The dispute relates to khata No. 240. One Smt. Jhuria the predecessor in interest of the petitioners filed an objection under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (here-in-under referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the land in dispute had been in the tenancy of her husband Buddhoo who died before 1930 and she became tenant of the land in dispute before abolition of Zamindari and became Sirdar after the date of vesting. The land in dispute was sub-let to the contesting respondent No. 2 on account of her being widow and his mane has wrongly been recorded as Sirdar. The claim of Smt. Jhuria was contested by respondent No. 2. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.1.1977 allowed the objection of Smt. Jhuria over the khata in dispute except for plot No. 1864. Another objection filed by respondent No. 3 Jagannath claimed co-tenancy right alongwith respondent No. 2 Raghunath was also rejected. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, three appeals were filed; one by Smt. Jhuria, another by respondent No. 2 and the third by respondent No. 3. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 14.4.1977 dismissed all the three appeals. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, respondent No. 2 filed revision before the Joint Director of Consolidation who allowed the revision vide impugned order dated 21.11.1980 and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the entire evidence was before the Deputy Director of Consolidation he was not justified in remanding the matter back and the order of remand was manifestly erroneous. Reliance has been placed on the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Ram Deo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1983 AWC 49, Bashir Ahmad and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1986 RD 164 and Sarabjeet and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gyanpur and others, 2003 (95) RD 662 wherein it has been held that where the entire evidence was before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he ought to have considered the case on merits and order of remand was not justified.;