Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of title proceedings in respect of several khatas. The petitioner Munni Ram and respondent No. 2 and some other respondents are descendants of common ancestor Govind Ram. Objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioner Sita Ram. He claimed to be the adopted son of Musai, grandson of Govind Ram and claimed succession to Musai. The petitioner also alleged that Shiv Lakhan one of the sons of Govind Ram had separated his khata from the joint family and the name of his sons Bandhu etc. was wrongly recorded. He also prayed that the names of some of the members of the family who had transferred their shares were also wrongly recorded. The case was contested by Munni Ram. Several issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer. One of the issues was about the adoption of the petitioner Sita Ram, which was disputed. Several other issues including one that whether the petitioner was son of Kripa were also framed. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer respondents filed three separate appeals. The appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation three separate revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his impugned order dated 20.5.85 has allowed all the revisions and has remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. This order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri R.S. Mishra Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Misra Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.
(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that there was no evidence in support of the case of adoption set up by Sita Ram and that there was also no issue framed regarding Munni Ram's share, which had not been determined. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the matter requires fresh decision.;