JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh holding brief of Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. In spite of service of notice no one has put in appearance on behalf of contesting respondent No.3. 3. The dispute relates to plot No. 1869 of khata No. 211 which was recorded in the name of Ramchandra father of respondent No. 3 and various other persons. One Bhagwan Sahai and Shivnarain obtained a money decree against Ramchandra and other tenure-holders. In execution of the said decree an area of .21 acre of the plot in dispute was purchased by the petitioner on 19.10.1964. The said sale was subsequently confirmed and possession was also delivered to the petitioner under the orders of the civil court executing the decree. A suit for partition among the co-tenure holders was also pending. Since the total area of the holding was less than 3.18 acres as such under the provision of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act instead of dividing the holding the court directed sale thereof. Ramchandra father of respondent No.3 being the smallest tenure-holder having a preferential right purchased the holding in the year 1966. During consolidation proceedings an objection was filed by the petitioner alleging that an area .21 acre of the plot in dispute was purchased by him in court auction in execution of a money decree and thus his name should be recorded over the said area of the plot. One Subhash Chandra also filed an objection alleging that he was daughter’s son of Mathura Prasad and thus entitled to his 1/4th share in the holding and should be recorded as co-tenure holder. Ramchandra contested the proceedings on the ground that the plot in dispute came to his share exclusively in proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 4. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.9.1970 allowed the objection filed by the petitioner and directed that his name should be entered over an area of .21 acre of the said plot. The objection filed by Subhash chandra was also allowed and he was declared as co-tenure holder. The name of all other recorded co-tenure holders was directed to be expunged. Ramchandra filed an appeal against the said order. The objection filed by Subhash chandra was also allowed and he was declared as co-tenure holder. The name of all other recorded co-tenure holders was directed to be expunged. Ramchandra filed an appeal against the said order. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 26.2.1971 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court on the limited issue to decide the actual date of death of Mathura Prasad and whether when Subhash Chandra was born Mathura Prasad was alive or not. After remand the Consolidation Officer framed only one issue which was to the effect as to who is the legal heir of deceased Mathura Prasad. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.9.1971 decided the said issue. Against the same Ramchandra again filed an appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation while deciding the appeal reopened the question with regard to the rights of the petitioner in the plot in dispute on the basis of the auction sale and held that the auction sale was made when the plot already came in the name of Ramchandra and, as such, he is not entitled to have any interest and the order of the Consolidation Officer in this regard cannot be maintained. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.8.1973 holding that once the land had already put to auction and had been purchased by Ramchandra subsequent auction of the said land for realization of decreetal amount was meaningless and he is not entitled to have any interest in the land in dispute. 5. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the remand was made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 26.2.1971 to the Consolidation Officer to decide the limited question with regard to the date of death of Mathura Prasad and whether Subhash Chandra is legal heir or not. The judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1970 allowing the objection of the petitioner was not set aside. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer after remand only considered and decided the question with regard to the legal heir of deceased Mathura Prasad. The judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1970 allowing the objection of the petitioner was not set aside. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer after remand only considered and decided the question with regard to the legal heir of deceased Mathura Prasad. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1970 and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation having become final the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass orders in respect of .21 acre of the disputed plot which was purchased by the petitioner in auction sale on appeal filed by respondent no.3 against the order of the Consolidation Officer passed after remand. It has next been urged that both Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded under misapprehension that auction sale .21 acre of the disputed plot in execution of money decree was of a later date than the auction sale in favour of Ramchandra in proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 7. There appears to be considerable force in the argument. From the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.2.1971 it is clear that remand was made to the Consolidation Officer only for a limited question as to who is the legal heir of deceased Mathura Prasad. The judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1970 allowing the objection of the petitioner was not touched. The remand order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not challenged in revision and thus the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1970 and 26.2.1971 became final. After remand the Consolidation Officer rightly framed only one issue with regard to the legal heir of deceased Mathura Prasad and decided the same against which Ramchandra filed the appeal. The appellate court while hearing appeal against the order dated 17.9.1971 which only pertained to the issue as to who is the legal heir of deceased Mathura Prasad, erroneously set aside the earlier judgment of the Consolidation Officer with regard to .21 acre of the land in dispute which was in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also committed the same mistake and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also committed the same mistake and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. From the judgment of the Consolidation Officer it becomes clear that .21 acre of plot in dispute was auctioned in favour of the petitioner on 19.10.1964 whereas Ramchandra purchased the plot in dispute in proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the year 1966 which is obviously later in point of time of purchase of .21 acre by the petitioner in auction sale held in execution of the money decree. Apparently, both Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded under a misapprehension that auction sale in favour of the petitioner is later in point of time than that of Ramchandra. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in so far they relate to .21 acre of plot No. 1869 purchased by the petitioner in execution of a money decree is set aside and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1970 is affirmed. 9. The writ petition stands allowed. No orders as to costs. Petition Allowed. ————