S.K.KAUL,J. - (1.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 93 of 1971 and special ap­peal No. 94 of 1971 are filed by the same party and are directed aga­inst the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in writ peti­tions Nos. 676 of 1968 and 70 of 1969. It may be noted here that writ petition No. 676 of 1968 was filed by Oriyawan who is one of the respendents in both these special appeals. In this writ petition Bin-deshwari Bux Singh and Devi Saran Singh apart from Deputy Direc­tor of Consolidation were made respondents. Writ Petition No. 70 of 1969 was filed by Bindeshwari Bux Singh and Smt. Raj Kumari and in this writ petition respondents were Oriyawan and Devi Saran Singh apart from Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both these writ petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge and these were disposed of by a common judgment in this way that the learn­ed Single Judge allowed writ petition No. 676 of 1968 while he dis­missed writ petition No. 70 of 1969. In these circumstances the spe­cial appeals have been filed by Bindeshwari Bux Singh and Smt. Raj Kumari.
(2.) THE following pedigree may be noted at the outset: Kali Bux Singh Narain Pratap Singh Bindeshwari Bux Singh -Smt. Raj Kumari widow Devi Saran Singh Both these writ petitions relate to a consolidation matter. The dis­pute related to eight plots of Khata No. 37 situate in village Piparia Mahipal Singh, Tahsil Qaiserganj district Bahraich. The contention of Oriyawan was that he had taken lease of the aforesaid eight plots from Kali Bux Singh some time in the year 1353 Fasli (it is also men­tioned at some place as 1355 Fasli). According to Oriyawan his name was recorded in the basic year with the result that when consolidation operations started, an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consoli­dation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by Devi Saran Singh before the Assistant Consolidation Officer to this effect that he claimed Sirdari rights in respect of four plots only, Nos. 171, 385|1, 413 and 1113|1. According to Oriyawan the sole objector was Devi Saran Singh and it was not joined either by Kali Bux Singh or Bindeshwari Bux Singh. He also contended that this objection was undated. He further asserted that he was made to sign a compro­mise on December 29, 1963 on the point of a gun with the result that the Assistant Consolidation Officer decided the matter in terms of the compromise in this way that he allowed the objection filed by Devi Saran Singh in respect of four plots. Against that order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Oriyawan went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal of Oriyawan on June 10, 1964. He set aside the compromise and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for decision of the objection on merits. Feeling aggrieved from that order of remand Devi Singh filed a re­vision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It may be noted here that in this revision he did not implead Kali Bux Singh or Bin­deshwari Bux Singh either as a respondent or likewise himself as a revisionist. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the re­vision on September 4, 1964 and confirmed the order of remand. On remand the Consolidation Officer, as a result of evidence adduced be­fore him, came to the conclusion that Oriyawan failed to establish his actual possession whereas Kali Bux Singh has succeeded in es­tablishing his own possession and as such he ordered the name of Oriyawan to be expunged and that of Kali Bux Singh to be entered in respect of all the eight plots although only four plots were the subject-matter of dispute before him. The Consolidation Officer also declared Devi Saran Singh to be Sirdar of those eight plots. Oriya-wan filed an appeal as against that decision. In the meantime Kali Bux Singh had died. The S.O.C. however, dismissed the appeal of Oriyawan on April 5, 1966. Thereafter Oriyawan went up in revi­sion. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated November 25, 1966, which is Annexure-3 to writ petition No. 676 of 1968, remanded the case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation after formulating four points as below: (1) Whether 4 plots were disputed or the dispute related to the whole Khata? (2) Whether there was an interpolation in the objection filed before the A.C.O., (3) Whether Kali Bux Singh filed any objection before the A.C.O. or not and if he had failed to do so what would be the consequence? (4) "Whether Kali Bux Singh has still left any right in the land and if so could be given any relief? 5. It may be mentioned here that while the appeal was pending en remand before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bindeshwari Singh made an application supported by an affidavit that Kali Bux Singh had two sons, namely Narain Pratap Singh and he himself, that Narain Pratap Singh had left behind him a widow Raj Kumari, and since Oriyawan had not impleaded Raj Kumari as respondent in appeal, the appeal stood abated. The Settlement Officer without giv­ing any decision one way or the other on this application decided the four points noted above on the basis of evidence and this decision on all these four points was in favour of Oriyawan. Feeling aggrieved from that decision Bindeshwari Bux Singh and Devi Saran Singh filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on March 27, 1968 which is Annexure-5 to both these writ petitions. Apart from giving his findings on these four points the Deputy Director of Con­solidation remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer after set­ting aside the order of the lower court with a direction to make Gaon Sabha as well as State as a party and also to give a notice to them to file objection if they so desire and thereafter decide the case after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made by him. Feeling aggrieved from this decision of the Deputy Director of Con­solidation both these sets of writ petitions were filed. Oriyawan felt aggrieved from the entire decision of the Deputy Director while from the entire decision of the Deputy Director while Bindeshwari Bux Singh and Raj Kumari felt aggrieved from the order of remand alone by the Deputy Director. 6. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration several rulings, came to the conclusion that while writ petition No. 676 of 1968 had to be allowed, writ petition No. 70 of 1969: had to be dismissed. He also was of this view that once the matter was decid­ed by the Deputy Director and the case was remanded to the Settle­ment Officer Consolidation no question of abatement could arise. He also was of this view that since in the basic year the name of Oriya­wan was mentioned in Khatauni there was no escape from the conelusion that he had become adhivasi of these eight plots under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and in due course these Adhivesi rights had ripened into Sirdari rights with the result that there was no justification for remand for determination of the question of title either of Kali Bux Singh or of Gram Sabha or of the State. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. We are of this view that for purposes of decision of both these writ petition it is not necessary for us to enter into the question about rights of the parties. The fact remains that none of the par­ties had filed a writ petition against the order of remand of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated November 25, 1966 in which he had formulated four points for decision of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. That order, therefore, had become final. The only thing that was open to the parties was to file a revision against the findings of the Settlement Officer Consolidation given on all these four points before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It appears that since findings on all these four points were in favour of Oriya-wan, obviously he had no need to file any revision. The revision was filed only by Devi Saran Singh since he was aggrieved from that de­cisions. It was the duty of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to to have decided those four points and incidently to have also decided the rights of Devi Saran Singh and Oriyawan and also of others in case he came to the conclusion that other persons also had joined the objections filed by Devi Saran Singh. It was not open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have himself entered into the question about the fact whether this land was Banjar or not because none of the parties alleged before him that the land was Banjar. The parties asserted their own cultivatory rights. It was, therefore, foreign in this case to have gone to the question about the rights of Gram Sabha or the State. We may note here that the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation while deciding these four points could go into the question about rights accruing to Oriyawan on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in Basudeo and others v. Board of Revenue and others 1974 R.D. 188 and Bachan and another v. Kankar and others 1972 S.C.C., Vol. II, 555, so on and so forth. We are not going to enter into that question ourselves, lest it might influence the Deputy Director one way or the other. Suffice to say that he had to decide the revision filed before him in accordance with law on the four points that were formulated by his predecessor on which not only evidence was there on record but on which the Settlement Officer Consolidation had also given a decision. That being so, we think any decision by ourselves on these four points which are purely questions of fact would neither be desirable nor feasible. As a result we think both these writ petitions should be allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in its entirety should be quashed. 8. As a result we would partly allow both these special appeals in this way that while we allow both these writ petitions quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated March 27, 1968 con­tained in Annexure-5 of both these writ petitions in its entirety, we direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision filed by Devi Saran Singh in accordance with law on the four points formulated by his predecessor. Under the circumstances we would make costs easy throughout.;