Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Rama Niwas Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2.
(2.) In these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the validity of an order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya whereby he has allowed the revision petition filed against the appellate order dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. By the impugned order, the orders under appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, namely, the orders dated 17.04.2006 and 05.02.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer have also been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Consolidation Officer to decide the issues afresh under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act').
(3.) Ordinarily in the order of remand, this Court would not have interfered, however, the facts of this case are such that this matter calls for interference by the Court in this petition for the reason (which follows in the judgment at appropriate place) that the case set up by respondent no.2 on the basis of some will deed said to have been executed by the original recorded tenure holder, namely, Ram Karan is barred by statutory prescription available under section 11-A of the Act.;