ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the caveator -respondents.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of an objection under section 9A -2 regarding land situated in Village Salahabad, District Mau and is directed against the order dated 23.8.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) ON 21.8.2012, the contesting respondents filed a time barred objection under section 9A -2. The Consolidation Officer dismissed this objection on the ground that the objectors were availing two remedies having also filed an appeal and, therefore, held that the objection was not maintainable. It was also dismissed as barred by time having been filed almost two years, after the publication of notification under section 9. The consequential revision filed by the contesting respondents has been allowed, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to frame preliminary issues regarding as to whether any final order was passed in the first round of consolidation operations and also as to whether the said order is forged and fabricated. It has been directed that these preliminary issues be decided first and only thereafter if need arises, other issues be framed and decided. It is this order of remand, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an order was passed in the favour of the petitioner in the first round of consolidation operations on 26.5.1966 in Case No. 194. This order was incorporated in the revenue records and the entry continued and, therefore, on the start of the second round of consolidation operations, the name of the petitioner was recorded in the basic year. Two years after issuance of notification under section 9, the contesting respondents filed the objection under section 9A -2. They also preferred an appeal against the order of 26.5.1966 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He therefore submits that the observation of the Consolidation Officer, that the contesting respondents were availing two separate remedies before two different forums, was justified. This appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the contesting respondents prior to the decision in the revision. He therefore submits that the order dated 26.5.1966 after withdrawal of the appeal has become final and the same cannot be challenged by means of the objection, which has been remanded for decision by the Consolidation Officer. He contends that a pure question of law was involved in the revision and there was no justification for remanding the matter back for framing preliminary issues. He has lastly submitted that he is aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order that the order dated 26.5.1966 is forged and fabricated.;