Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under; An objection was filed by respondent No. 4 under section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') claiming rights over the property in dispute on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 22.4.1974 said to have been executed by Damodar (father of the present petitioner and respondent No. 5). Since no objection was filed, the said application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.5.1992. Feeling aggrieved, by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal on the ground that his father had died on 28.1.1987 and the impugned order was passed by the Consolidation Officer against a dead person. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 15.4.2006 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh, on merits after an opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the revision against an order of remand. The Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the parties on the maintainability of the revision. Vide order dated 28.6.2006 while holding the revision as maintainable, he set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation remaining the case back to the Consolidation Officer and maintained the order of the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the matter was heard only in respect of the maintainability of the revision and no opportunity was given for arguments on merits and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly allowed the revision on merits. It has also been urged that respondent No. 2 has allowed the revision without even summoning the record.;