Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3053 of 2019
Petitioner :- Brij Lal
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachida Nand Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to quash the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation Gorakhpur, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition.
From perusal of the record, it transpires that by way of revision, one Shiv Kumar/respondent No.2 and Surendra/respondent No.4 has challenged the order dated 7.1.2017. After accepting the contentions raised by the counsel for the revisionists, the Revisional Court quashed the order dated 26.06.2015 and 7.1.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the application dated 1.4.2015 which was filed by the present petitioner.
Sri Shailesh Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel made a preliminary objection that by the order dated 26.08.2019, respondent No.1 only remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh, which is an interlocatory order and against the aforesaid order, writ petition is not maintainable. He further argued that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow reported in 2017 (134) RD 25, in which it has already been held by this Court that remand order is an interlocutory order which does not terminate the proceedings. It is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the order of remand after final judgement made on remand. In the case of Dularey and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in 2005 (99) RD 174, it has been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the consolidation officer for fresh consideration, there was absolutely no justification either on the fact or law for the revisional court to interfere in the order of the appellate authority. It appears from the record that no legal injuries was caused to the petitioner by the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Gorakhpur/respondent No.1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the record, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that by the order impugned, only the matter was remanded back by the respondent No.1 to the Consolation Officer and it is a valid and perfect order and does not call for any interference by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and dismissed.
At this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer that Consolidation Officer be directed to decide the matter expeditiously on merits without going into the observations made by respondent No.1 in the order dated 26.08.2019.
Considering the prayer made at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the Consolidation Officer is directed to consider and decide the application dated 1.4.2015 without going into the observations made by respondent No.1 in the order dated 26.08.2019 in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 saqlain