JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been preferred for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 30-10-2003 passed by Additional Commissioner (Annexure IV to the writ petition) and the order dated 29-10-2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Kashipur (Annexure III to the writ petition). By the order dated 30-10-2003, the revision filed by the deceased petitioner Hetram Singh was dismissed. By order dated 29-10- 2001, the Assistant Collector has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27-1-2001 passed by Tahsildar Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) in Mutation Case No. 30/2114 of 1998-99 and it was directed that the mutation proceedings be decided on merits. 3. Predecessor of the petitioners had executed a sale-deed in favour of the mother of the respondents. On the basis of which mutation case No. 30/2114 of 1998-99, Rafiq Ahmad and others Vs. Hetram Singh was initiated. An objection was raised by the deceased petitioner Hetram Singh on the ground that mutation application filed earlier in respect of the same land had been rejected on 9-3-1983, hence second application is not maintainable. Tahsildar Kashipur by his order dated 27-1-2001 rejected the application of the respondents for mutation. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 27-1-2001 Appeal No. 52/09 of 2000-2001 was preferred before the Assistant Collector, Kashipur by the respondents under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (for short the Act). The appellate court after hearing both the parties has allowed the appeal on 29-11-2001 and set aside the order passed by Tahsildar and directed him to decide the mutation proceedings on merits by his order dated 29-10-2001. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Collector, deceased petitioner preferred revision no. 13/22 of 2001-2002 before the Additional Commissioner, who ultimately upheld the order passed by the courts below and dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the second mutation application was not maintainable. The respondents ought to have moved application under Section 201 of the Act for recalling the earlier order. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the land in dispute i.e. plot no. 150/2, area o.42 Hectare was purchased from Sri Hetram Singh by the respondents' mother through registered sale deed dated 12-10-1982. The application for mutation was moved bearing mutation case no. 30/38 of 82-83. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the land in dispute i.e. plot no. 150/2, area o.42 Hectare was purchased from Sri Hetram Singh by the respondents' mother through registered sale deed dated 12-10-1982. The application for mutation was moved bearing mutation case no. 30/38 of 82-83. The application was dismissed on 9-3-1983. The order of rejection is not available on record. After the death of mother of respondents, Smt. Sakiran, the respondents had moved mutation application on the basis of the sale deed in the year 1999, which was allowed ex parte on 29-9- 1999 by Tahsildar. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner moved restoration application under Section 201 of the Act. The application was allowed vide order dated 27-1-2001 and the second application for mutation was held to be not maintainable. The application for mutation was rejected. On appeal having been filed, the order dated 27-1-2001 was set aside by the Assistant Collector and the mutation proceeding was ordered to be decided on merits. The revision preferred by the deceased petitioner against the order of appellate court was dismissed by order dated 30-10-2003. 8. Admittedly, the Assistant Collector by remand order dated 29-10-2001 directed the Tahsildar to decide the mutation proceedings on merits. I am of the considered view that order of remand is an interlocutory order. 9. The Allhabad High Court in the case of Ram Narayan and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others [1996 (87), R.D. (Hindi Version) Page 58] has held that the order of remand is interlocutory in nature and no revision against such order is maintainable. 10. Even otherwise, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners if the mutation proceedings are decided on merits. 11. In view of the discussion and reasons aforesaid, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. The Tahsildar concerned shall decide the mutation proceedings on merits after hearing both the parties, expeditiously as far as possible. 13. All pending applications stand disposed of.