RAJIV JOSHI,J. - (1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.9.2016 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in Revision No. 968/1048/1047, under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the revision filed by the respondent no.2 was allowed and the orders dated 11.7.2006 and 3.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh has been set aside and the matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter afresh.
(2.) Relevant facts for the purpose of present case are thus: The dispute relates to the land of Khata Nos. 6 and 87 situated at village Daraura and Khata Nos. 190 and 191 situated at village Kamhenpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh. Initially, an objection under Section 9A (2) of the Act was filed by the petitioners claiming 11/12th share in the disputed property. The pedigree of the petitioners and respondent no.2 is given as under: Balak Ram Bharos Salik Sangram Vishwanath Sakaldeep Kalu Paltu Chandi Sitaram Jangi Amrej Raghupati Kedar Ramdulari Rajnarayan Musafir Santbaks Arvind Anil Sunil Rajnath Rajeshwar Sri Ram Ramashray Ramhriday Dhananjay Ramvijay The objection filed by the petitioners under Section 9A (2) of the Act is that in Khata No. 191, they have 10/12 share, Musafir and Sri Ram have 1/12 share, Amrej and his legal heirs i.e. Ram Dulary @ Shyam Devi and Raj Narayan have 1/12 share and further the claim of the petitioners regarding Khata No. 190 is that they have 11/12 share while Amrej and his legal heirs have 1/12 share. The objection filed by the petitioners was contested by Amrej Singh on the ground that he has got 1/3 share in the property and not 1/12 share as claimed by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.7.2006 decided the share of the parties on its merit. It is also pertinent to note here that earlier a suit being Original Suit No. 238 of 1952 (Jangi Vs. Raghupat) for partition was filed before the Munsif Magistrate City, Azamgarh and the said suit was finally decided vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.1954, whereby the share of Jangi Singh was determined as 1/12 and Sita Ram @ Amrej as 1/12 share. The said decree passed by the civil court has not been challenged by any of the parties and attained finality. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.7.2006 relying upon the said decree determined the share of the parties and allowed the claim. Subsequently, a recall application was filed on 19.7.2006 in respect of land of village Kamhenpur and not in respect of land of village Daraura. The recall application has been rejected vide order dated 3.10.2012 by the Consolidation Officer. The respondent no.2 challenged both the orders dated 11.7.2006 as well as 3.10.2012 in Revision No. 968/1048/1047, under Section 48 of the Act on 5.10.2012, in which preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners on 20.9.2016 regarding the maintainability of the revision on two grounds. Firstly, single revision challenging two orders is not maintainable. Secondly, the proceeding is not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 1996 RD Page 30. Apart from raising preliminary objection, petitioners also filed a detailed objection against the revision on 20.9.2016. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 20.9.2016 allowed the revision and set aside both the orders dated 11.7.2006 and 3.10.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer and remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh.
(3.) The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.9.2016 is impugned in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Murli Dhar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. ;