Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.:— Heard Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Controversy involved in the present case relates to Plot No.309 (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute) situated in Village-Mubarakpur, Pargana-Mahona, Tehsil-Buxi Ka Talab. In respect of the same, an objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been filed by the petitioner, accordingly, a case has been registered bearing Case No.46/2011-12 before the Consolidation Officer, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. In the said matter, an application has been moved by the petitioner to call the report from the consolidation authority of Revenue Department on the ground that the double entry has been made in the revenue record in respect to the land in dispute, allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.12.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party no.3 filed a revision bearing Revision No.343/256/12-13 "Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow vs. Indrapal and Ors." under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), allowed by order dated 25.10.2012 with the following observations:- "?????? ?? ????? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?. ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????/????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ? ???? ???? ?????? ??.??.???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ?" Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. ???? ?? ? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ?" Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure No.1) passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow on the ground that the same is "interlocutory order", as such, in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, the revision filed by the opposite party no.3 is not maintainable. So, the impugned order is in contravention to the mandatory provisions of Section 48 of the Act, without jurisdiction, liable to be set aside. Thus, in order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, I feel it would be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is quoted herein below:- ""48. Revision and reference: - (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order [other than interlocutory order] passed by such 3 authority in the case of proceedings and may after, allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercise by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). Explanation - (1) for the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation - (1) for the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation - (2) For the purpsoe of this Section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding ; means such order deciding any mater arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It ha to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by its is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding. Accordingly, the core question to be decided in the present case whether the order dated 31.12.2011 (Annexure No.2) passed by Consolidation Officer, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow/opposite party no.3 is an "interlocutory order" or and order passed durng the proceeding to adjudicate the dispute. Hon'ble the Superme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 551 has explained the meaning of the word "interlocutory order" as under:- "Paragraph No.12- Ordinarily and generally the expression 'interlocutory order' has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term 'final order'. In volume 22 of the third edition of Halsbury's Laws of England at page 742, however, it has been stated in para 1606: "....... a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. In volume 22 of the third edition of Halsbury's Laws of England at page 742, however, it has been stated in para 1606: "....... a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of two words must therefore be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required." In para 1607 it is said : "In general a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed "final"." In para 1608 at pages 744 and 745 we find the words "An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the- final judgment are to be worked out, is termed "interlocutory". An interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals." Paragraph no.13- In S. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King(1) Kania C. J., delivering the judgment of the Court has referred to some English decisions at pages 185 and 186. Lord Esher M. R. said in Salaman v. Warner(2) "If their decision, whichever way it is given, will, if it stands, finally dispose of the matter in dispute, I think that for the purposes of these rules it is final. On the other hand, if their decision, if given in one way, will finally dispose of the matter in dispute, but, if given in the other, will allow the action to go on, then I think it is not final, but interlocutory." The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Munna Singh @ Shivaji Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another 2011 (9) ADJ 98 (FB) while considering the word "interlocutory order" on paragraph nos.23 and 30 held as under:- "While carving out a distinction between the orders of a final nature and interlocutory nature the apex court in the case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 962 gave the nomenclature of an "intermediate order" to be between a final order and the initiation of a proceeding which may be affecting the interest of either of the parties, and could not be termed as a pure and simple interlocutory order. This view came to be followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court earlier who has made the present reference in the case of Gulab Chand Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (48) ACC 579 and again by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Kant Dubey Vs. Smt. Jamuni & others, reported in 1999 (39) ACC 649." "The distinction between the two, interlocutory and intermediary would be that the former does not bring about any consequence of moment and is an aid in the performance of the final Act. It does not affect any existing rights finally or to the disadvantage of either extremes. An intermediate order can touch upon the rights of the parties or be an order of moment so as to affect any of the rival parties by its operation. Such an order affecting the rights of a person or tending to militate against either of the parties even at the subordinate stage can be termed as an intermediate or an intermediary order." Further, the word 'Proceedings' has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary Ninth Edition as under:- "'Proceeding' is a word much used to express the business done in Courts. A proceeding in court is an act done by the authority or direction of the court, express or implied. It is more comprehensive than the word 'action' but it may include in its general sense all the steps taken or measures adopted in the prosecution or defense of an action, including the pleadings and judgment. In the case of Ram Chandra Aggarwal v. State of U.P. AIR 1966 SC 1888 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "proceeding" used in this section is not a term of art which has acquired a definite meaning. What its meaning is when it occurs in a particular statute or a provision of a statute will have to be ascertained by looking at the relevant statute. What its meaning is when it occurs in a particular statute or a provision of a statute will have to be ascertained by looking at the relevant statute. In the case of Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982) 1 SCC 525 Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the term "proceeding" is a very comprehensive term and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right. It is not a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it, but one the ambit of whose meaning will be governed by the statute. It indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial business is conducted. In the case of P.L. Kanta Rao v. State of A.P. (1995) 2 SCC 471 Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the word "proceeding" would depend upon the scope of the enactment wherein the expression is used with reference to a particular context where it occurs. It may mean a course of action for enforcing a legal right. In the journey of litigation, there are several stages, one of which is the realisation of the judicial adjudication which attained finality. The word "proceeding" though has not been defined under Section 29, it is a comprehensive term. In view of the legal position stated above if by an order/proceeding, some lis has been decided by a Court in a matter then the said order will fall within the ambit and scope of interlocutory order. In the present case by means of the order dated 31.12.2011 (Annexure No.2), Consolidation Officer has only issued a direction to the competent authority to make a spot inspection and submit his report so by the said order, no lis has been decided between the parties by the Consolidation Officer but the same has passed only to enable the said authority to dispose of the matter in question. Hence, the order dated 31.12.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer in any manner, cannot be termed as "interlocutory order" as argued and submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is an order passed in the proceedings pending for consideration/adjudication before the Consolidation Officer to decide the same. Hence, the order dated 31.12.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer in any manner, cannot be termed as "interlocutory order" as argued and submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is an order passed in the proceedings pending for consideration/adjudication before the Consolidation Officer to decide the same. So keeping in view the said fact as well as law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gyan Chand v. Kunjbeharilal and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 858, wherein paragraph no.10 it has been held as under:- "In view of the connotation of the word "proceeding" as given under the Explanation to Section 13A it is impermissible to extend the meaning of the word "proceeding" to include an application for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. The collocation of the words, "suit, appeal or application for revision" in the explanation to denote "proceeding" would go to show that suits, regular appeals therefrom, as provided under the ordinary law and applications for revision alone are intended. It is inconceivable that if the legislature had intended to include within the ambit of "proceeding" an application for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution it would have omitted to mention it in express terms." Further, Explanation 2 of Section 48 of the Act provides that for the purpose of this Section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding ; means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. Accordingly, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case is wholly misconceived that the order dated 31.12.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer, Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow is an interlocutory order, so the revision filed by opposite party no.3 is not maintainable under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, liable to be rejected. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________