Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76809 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 283 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chhedilal And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shanker Pal Counsel for Respondent :- Abhay Raj Yadav,Achal Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar holding brief of Mr. Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for private respondent No.6, Mr. Achal Singhv learned counsel for gaon sabha and Mr.T.P.Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the title proceeding Consolidation Officer has passed the order dividing the share between the parties. Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer, a restoration application/ appeal filed by private respondents were dismissed but revision filed by private respondent has been allowed vide order dated 09.12.2024 and matter has been remitted before consolidation officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H.Act, afresh on merit. Hence this writ petition for the following relief: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot in Case No.0046 of 2024 (Premchandra and others versus Chhedilal and others) under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1958 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Consolidation Officer has already exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law, as such the matter cannot be remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. He submitted that recall/ restoration application as well as appeal filed by private respondents was rightly dismissed, but revisional court has remanded the matter again before consolidation officer, which is abuse of process of law, as such revisional order should be set aside and order passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar holding brief of Mr. Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for private respondents submitted that consolidation officer has not decided the matter after framing issues and giving opportunity to parties to lead the evidence, as such revisional jurisdiction has been rightly exercised by Deputy Director of Consolidation which requires no interference. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that consolidation officer has passed the order under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which has been set aside under the impugned revisional order and matter has been remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, order of Consolidation officer will be relevant for perusal, which is as under: " छछयछपतत आददश तदनछनक 23.02.2016 शछ० तम०वछद सन० 155 धछरछ 9A (2) ससलहनछमछ शछ०तम०वछद सन0 155 धछरछ 9A (2) ममजछ तहससल मछतनकपसर कछमतछ आतद बनछम सरकछर नयछयछलय चकबनदस अधधकछरस रछजछपसर आददश तदनछनक 23.07.2016/03.02.2016 बसतछ नन0 135 गग०न० 1227 नगट पतछवलस जसरर शसरर सससतत मम हह। 03.02.2016 आज पतछवलस पदश हहई पसकछर पत अधध० आयद तसछ सदवछ पछसरनछ पत ददकर बतछयछ तक तदनछनक 03.02.2016 कग तछररख आददश मह.......... कर हगकर ससनवछइनछमछ कद आधछर पर तकयछ गयछ सछस गहर पर सछफ सससरछ तकयछ कग तवववदचनछ करनद पर सहस पछयछ गयछ आददश ससनस तक- आददश उपरगक कद आधछर पर तदनछनक 03.02.2016 आददश तवरसत तकयछ जछतछ हह। एवन आनतशक सनददश करतद हहयद आददश तक गछम चरहस कद खत सद 21 कछ चक भभतम कग छगडकर तवशछल कछमतछ 1/48 नतसभ 1/48. मभनस लछल 1248, गसलजछर 3/8.1/10 लकमस 1/20 भभरछ 1/20 रछमदसन 1/10 शनकर 1/6 नतसभ 1/64 तशवलखन 1/64 रछमपकछश 1/64 सभखल 1/50 लखन लछल 1/50 रछमदशवर 1/50 ददवकस मछर 1/50 गनधद 1/100 तदनदश 1/100 महछवसर 1/30 रछजरछम 1/30 शछरदछ 1/30 भछग दजर हग। तदनछक-23.02.2016 ह 0 अ 0" 8. Perusal of the order passed by Consolidation officer annexed along with supplementary affidavit as Annexure No.S.A.2 which is quoted above demonstrate that no proper notice/ opportunity has been given to parties to lead the evidence, as such there is no illegality in the revisional order to decide the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned revisional order remanding the matter back before consolidation officer to decide the title proceeding afresh. 10. The writ petition is dismissed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the proceeding under Section 9- A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act afresh after framing the issues and giving parties to lead evidence expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad