HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 792 of 2023 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of impugned order has allowed the revision preferred by the private respondents and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 18.01.2016. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that present dispute pertains to title dispute under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, with regard to Gata No. 1323/01, area 0.080 hectares situated at Village - Karmullapur, Pargana - Hisampur, Tehsil - Kaiserganj, District - Bahraich. Petitioners claim to the disputed property is on the basis of the fact that the land was previously recorded in the name of one Thakur Prasad Singh, father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and father-in-law of petitioner no. 3 and was recorded in his name in 1360 Fasli and even in the basic year of Khatauni was also recorded in the name of Thakur Prasad Singh. Objections were filed before the Consolidation authorities. During Consolidation proceedings, it is stated that the Plot No. 1323/01 has been wrongly carved out from Plot No. 1323/2 and had challenged the possesion of Thakur Prasad Singh on the disputed property. 4. The Consolidation Officer has rejected the objections of Thakur Prasad Singh stating that the said objections were decided by means of correction of records (Naksha Durusti) by order dated 26.04.2011 and thereby rejecting the claim of Thakur Prasad Singh. Being aggrieved by order of Consolidation Officer, appeals were filed under Section 11(1) of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogesh Singh, Anupama Bhadauria, Rajneesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., M.A. Siddiqui Rajesh Kumar Singh And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And 23 Others .....Respondent(s) Consolidation of Holdings Act, before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 5. The Settlement Officer Consolidation had allowed the appeal of the petitioners and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 30.01.2016. Against order dated 30.01.2016, private respondent no. 6 had filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been allowed by means of impugned order dated 12.06.2023, which has been challenged in the present proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that perusal of order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) indicates that he had noticed that in the present matter further evidence ought to be taken into consideration and also that previous order dated 29.03.2014, would have to be considered by the Consolidation Officer and accordingly, remitted the matter back to the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Bahraich to decide the matter afresh. 7. It is noticed that no issue was decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and order of remand was a simplicitor. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court finds that it was merely an interlocutory order remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for being decided afresh and no rights of the parties were decided in the said order. Objections to the maintainability of the revision was noticed by the revisional authority, but he has not returned any finding in this regard. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds that the grounds raised by the petitioners merit interference. 9. The orders for remand are not lightly interfered with unless they are contrary to the record or reflect manifest error. In the present case this Court finds that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has also duly considered the fact that non consideration of previous order dated 19.06.2015 in the previous proceedings pertaining to Gata No. 1323 which ought to have been taken into account. 10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preetam Singh Vs. Director of Consolidation, (1996) 2 SCC 270, on the present issue has observed as under :- “5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. We can safely say on the strength of the two precedents of this Court in Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand [(1977) 2 SCC 155] and Sukhrani v. Hari Shanker [(1979) 2 SCC 463] that the appellants should succeed. In the former case this Court expressed its view that: “the remand order by the High Court is a finding in an intermediate stage of the same litigation. … The appeal before the Supreme Court is from the suit as a whole and, therefore, the entire subject-matter is available for WRIB No. 792 of 2023 2 adjudication before us. … Otherwise, the whole lis for the first time comes to the Supreme Court and the High Court's finding at an intermediate stage does not prevent examination of the position of law by the Supreme Court. Intermediate stages of the litigation and orders passed at those stages have a provisional finality. *** The contention barred before the High Court is still available to be canvassed before this Court when it seeks to pronounce finally on the entirety of the suit.” In the later case this Court expressed the view that: “Though a decision given at an earlier stage of the suit will bind the parties at a later stage of the same suit, it is equally well settled that because a matter has been decided at an earlier stage by an interlocutory order and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a higher Court is not precluded from considering the matter again at a later stage of the same litigation.” 11. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the revision was not maintainable. In the light of above, present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.06.2023 is set aside, the matter is remitted to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh. While deciding the matter he shall take into consideration the directions passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and also consider the previous orders as noticed by him. 12. Let the matter be decided expeditiously, say within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. August 27, 2025 A. Verma WRIB No. 792 of 2023 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench