SANJAY MISRA, J.— Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 Sri Anuj Kumar on behalf of respondent No. 4 Gaon Sabha. Notice need not be issued to the respondents No. 2 and 5 in view of the order being passed herein. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 9.7.2012 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate/Collector Banda in Appeal No. 1 of 2012, Alok Kumar Kushwaha v. Rameshwar and others. 3. According to learned Counsel for petitioner, the petitioner and the appellant Alok Kumar Kushwaha are owners of half share each in the Gata in question. The petitioner is in possession over half portion in the northern side of the Gata and has made constructions thereon. Hence, he had applied for changing nature of the land under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') in case No. 3 of 2009-10. The Assistant Collector passed order dated 19.3.2010 in case No. 3 of 2009-10, State v. Rameshwar and others, and permitted change to the nature of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. 4. He states that Alok Kumar Kushwaha, the respondent No. 2 filed restoration application before the Assistant Collector and the Assistant Collector rejected the same on the ground that the order under section 143 of the Act could have been passed even suo moto or on an application and such an order having been already passed, there was no occasion to allow the restoration application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 filed Appeal No. 1 of 2012, Alok Kumar Kushwaha v. Rameshwar and others, before the Collector Banda. In the said appeal the Collector Banda by his order dated 9.7.2012 has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such a remand order could not have been made because admittedly the petitioner and Alok Kumar Kushwaha were owners of half share each in the gata in question and the petitioner was in possession over the northern portion thereof, therefore, he made constructions thereon and there was mutual partition between the parties. 7. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the record, it appears that the appellate Court has set aside the order of the trial Court for the reason that Alok Kumar Kushwaha is admittedly half share owner of the unparti-tioned gata in question and he was not given any notice prior to passing of the order in proceedings under section 143 of the Act and his restoration application was also illegally rejected. The appellate Court was of the view that since the Alok Kumar Kushwaha was co-bhumidhar with the petitioner of the agricultural land, his objection was required to be considered prior to passing of, any order under section 143 of the Act. 8. From the aforesaid findings recorded by the appellate Court it is quite apparent that Alok Kumar Kushwaha, the owner of half share in the agricultural land was not given any notice or opportunity to raise his objection and his restoration application was illegally rejected by the Assistant Collector only for the reason that an order under section 143 of the Act has already been passed by the Assistant Collector. 9. From the record of the writ petition it is not quite clear as to whether there was a partition between parties in any competent Court and the mutual partition, if any, has not been proved and therefore, consideration of objection of the co-bhumidhar Alok Kumar Kushwaha was necessary before converting agricultural land into land for industrial or residential use particularly when it was a joint holding. He having not been given any notice prior to passing of the order under section 143 of the Act, the appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter back to the trial Court to give notice to the co-tenure holder and decide the case after hearing both the parties. No error can be found in the impugned order. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. 11. No order is passed as to costs. Petition Dismissed. _____________