Arvind Kumar Tripathi II, J.— 1. Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the for Opposite Parties No. 2, 3 and 4. Opposit Party No.1 is represented by State and Opposite Party No.5 is represented by Sri R.N.Gupta, learned counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.12.2012 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Faizabad, by which the Deputy Director Consolidation has remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer with a direction that the Consolidation Officer should pass order in light of order of this Hon'ble High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 1152, 1153 and 1196 dated 27.10.2008 to allot the chaks and submit a detail and clear report in this Court. 3. It has been averred in the writ petition that the main dispute is related to Plot No. 601 which is the original holding of the petitioner along with the opposite parties. Some portion of Plot No. 601, there was tree shade and Usar land and, therefore, the petitioner has filed objection before Consolidation Officer for fixing liability, valuation and Consolidation Officer allowed the objection and reduced the valuation as 20 paise in place of 70 paise regarding 160 Aer area being tree shade and 100 Aer area as Usar land and valuation of rest land remain intact vide order dated 5.12.2007(Annexure-3 to the writ petition). In this order, area for reducing the valuation pertaining to Usar and tree shade was not ascertained and determined. Therefore, a restoration was filed and area was also determined vide order dated 14.9.2009. According to the area evaluated by the Consolidation Officer, chak was proposed and revision filed by petitioner in the proceeding arising out of allotment of chak was allowed. Writ petition field by opposite parties against that order was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. In view of this, a reference was forwarded by Consolidation authorities to Deputy Director Consolidation for approval and revisional court approved the reference letter on opposite party filed recall application in the year 2012 alleging therein that he was not heard by the DDC, though, all the affected parties were served and heard. The revisional court entertained the recall application, recalled the earlier order ignoring the Full Bench decision of this Court. The revisional court entertained the recall application, recalled the earlier order ignoring the Full Bench decision of this Court. Revisional court has recorded finding that in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court reference is to be passed whereas there is no order or positive direction of Hon'ble High Court regarding allotment of chak and reference is being proposed in accordance with the order passed by Consolidation Officer on 14.9.2009 which is never challenged by either of the parties till date. Notification under Section 52 has been notified in the village one year back. The revisional court passed the order in presumption without applying judicial mind and has not relied ujpon the pleadings and evidence produced by the petitioner. 4. Counter affidavit was filed by Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 in which it has been averred that petitioner and Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 are real brothers and sons of Late Ramdev who was recorded tenure holder of disputed land 601 area measuring 1.830 hectare including other plots no. 656 and 766 in the basic year entry. After partal, the consolidator revised the khesra chakbandi prepared one fourth share amongst the petitioner and opposite parties. Plot No. 601 area measuring 1.830 hectare is the biggest plot in the khata and the rate of valuation of the said plot was always remained 60 paise. The A.C.O. after completing the title dispute prepared provisional consolidation scheme and in this connection A.C.O. made chak of all the co-sharer on the disputed plot no. 601 on the basis of their possession. Petitioner in pursuant to the said chak allotment, filed objectiion under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H Act before the Consolidation Officer with specific objection that every co-sharer of the disputed plot no. 601 may be allotted their share in east-west dimension and further he prayed with chak road allotted in eastern side of plot no.601 can be cancelled. All the objections of the villagers were decided by a common order dated 18.4.2007. Opposite parties being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 11.7.2007. 601 may be allotted their share in east-west dimension and further he prayed with chak road allotted in eastern side of plot no.601 can be cancelled. All the objections of the villagers were decided by a common order dated 18.4.2007. Opposite parties being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 11.7.2007. The Settlement Officer invited objections after affording opportunity after hearing all the parties recorded a finding that the dimension of allotment of share of the parties on the disputed plot no.601 as it was made earlier was just and proper and the Consolidation Officer has without recording any finding changed the dimension of allotment. Thus, the Settlement Officer Consolidation upheld the dimension of allotment of share amongst the co-sharers on the disputed plot no. 601 as it was upheld by A.C.O. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide his order dated 15.9.2007 again upheld the dimension of the share of the parties on disputed plot no.601 as it was made earlier by A.C.O. During pendency of the appeal the petitioner preferred another objections under Section 9 A2 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer and prayed for deduction of valuation. In the said objection filed by the petitioner no other co-sharers of the disputed plot no.601 was arrayed as opposite parties and the deponent and Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 had no knowledge about the said objection. The Consolidation Officer without calling objection from the deponent and Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 reduced the valuation of the area. The petitioner filed a revision before D.D.C. Faizabad without remitting the matter before the Consolidation Officer heard the finally on merit and vide his order dated 27.10.2008 allowed the revision of the petitioner and changed the dimension of the allotment of the share of the parties. Opposite parties bonafidely preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court against the judgment and order dated 27.102008 passed by D.D.C. Faizabad which was dismissed on 17.4.2009. After that the petitioner malafidely submitted submitted an application on 31.7.2010 before the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Faizabad and on the aforesaid application behind the back of deponent at the behest of petitioner illegal, arbitrary and malafide reference report was forwarded and learned D.D.C. Faizabad without issuing notice to the deponent and other opposite parties decided the reference ex-parte vide judgment and order dat ed 2.2.2013. Then opposite parties preferred a restoration application and the D.D.C.Faizabad allowed the restoration application vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2012. Petitioner by concealing the aforementioned fact before the instant writ petition without disclosing and without challenging the order dated 24.9.2012. So the petitioner has not come with clean hand and is not entitled to any relief. 5. As this writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.12.2012, it will be pertinent to peruse the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that D.D.C. concerned has held that when the matter has been finalized by the Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petition No. 235(Cons.)/2009, then the chak should have been allotted according to that order and there is no legal necessity and D.D.C. has also no jurisdiction not to comply by the order of Hon'ble High Court as per the exchange ratio and the D.D.C. has remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh in compliance of Hon'ble High Court's order and the order passed in revision no. 1152, 1153 and 1196 dated 27.10.2008 and to allot chaks in compliance of those orders. Feeling aggrieved, this instant writ petition has been filed. 6. It was argued from the side of opposite parties that the remand order is an interlocutory order and learned D.D.C. was right in upholding in remanding the matter as the orders of the Hon'ble High Court as to be complied. 7. It is noteworthy that in Writ Petition No. 235(cons.)/2009 Raj Kishore Vs. Deputey Director Consolidation, District Faizabad, this court has held that : "The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order goes to indicate that the valuation of land which is Usar and covered by the trees, has been fixed at 20 paise and the rest of the land has been fixed at 60 paise and chaks have been carved out in such a manner that 60P and 20P valuation land is given to each of the persons after carving out the chaks in east-west direction. It seems that initially some mistake was made but while making the valuation of the chaks the same has been corrected as is evident from the impugned order considering the nature of the land. In these circumstances no interference is called for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed." 8. It seems that initially some mistake was made but while making the valuation of the chaks the same has been corrected as is evident from the impugned order considering the nature of the land. In these circumstances no interference is called for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed." 8. A perusal of this order clearly reveals that this Court has held that while making the valuation of the chaks initial mistakes were corrected. This clearly goes to show that this Court has approved the order passed by D.D.C.Faizabad dated 27.10.2008. 9. In the case of Mangal Prasad Tamoli (D) by L.Rs. V. Narmadeshwar Mishra(D) by L.Rs.2005 (99)RD 177, the Apex Court has held that "an order of remand by the High Court being an interlocutory judgment, which did not terminate the proceeding, it is open to the aggrieved party to challenge it after the final judgment." 10. In the case of Gopal Prasad V. Board of Revenue at Lucknow 2007 (102) RD 310, this Court has also held that "Court should not interfere with the remand order." 11. This Court has again in the case of Dularey and others V. Dy. Director of Consolidation 2005(99)RD 174, this Court has held that "if the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration, there was absolutely no jurisdiction either on the facts or in the law for the revisiinal court to interfere in the order of appellate authority." 12. Accordingly, this Court has not inclined to interfere in the remand order passed by D.D.C. The matter is still open and after final judgment, everything can be challenged as has been held by the Apex Court in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (D) by L.Rs. V. Narmadeshwar Mishra(D) by L.Rs.(supra). 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is likely to dismissed and is hereby dismissed. _____________