JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri A.K.Singh learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 785 of 2005 (Anar Kali v. Sanjeev Kumar Rai) by which question of maintainability of the revision has been considered and the revision has been entertained by rejecting the objection of the petitioner that the revision is not maintainable. 3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short the Act) initiated by late Anar Kali who was substituted by Sri Ahok Kumar Rai an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, old Ghazipur, on 4.9.2001. The petitioner herein has raised objection questioning the right of mutation of late Anar Kali. The objection of the petitioner has been over-ruled and the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 4.9.2001 has allowed the application directing to record the name of late Anar Kali in place of her husband, late Uma Shankar Rai. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for framing issues to be addressed by the Consolidation Officer. Against this order the respondent herein has filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in which an objection was raised by the petitioner that the order of remand was interlocutory in nature, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Section 48 of the Act the revision would not be maintainable. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after discussing the reason in detail held that the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (in short SOC) was not interlocutory in nature, therefore, the revision would be maintainable. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order the present writ petition has been filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after discussing the reason in detail held that the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (in short SOC) was not interlocutory in nature, therefore, the revision would be maintainable. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order the present writ petition has been filed. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Ram Avtar v. Ram Dhani, 1997 AIR (SC) 107; Sher Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1978 AIR(SC) 1341 and another decision of Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in Tribeni Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1961 RD 58, submits that the revision is not maintainable against an order of remand. 6. Sri A.K.Singh, who appears for the respondent has invited attention of this Court towards a Division Bench decision of this Court in Deena Nath and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, 2010 (6) AWC 6099 , where a question was referred, as to whether the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer in an appeal filed under Section 11 of the Act by setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act or not. The Division Bench has answered the question in negative by holding that the order of remand is not an interlocutory order and revision would be maintainable. He has also placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in Preetam Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. and others v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1996 SC 2881 . In his submission the revision has rightly been held to be maintainable and the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in Ram Avtar (supra) wherein the Apex Court has observed that the revisional Court cannot record finding on question of fact. This decision is distinguishable in regard to the controversy involved in the present case as here the question was as to whether revision against the remand order passed under Section 11 of the Act would be maintainable or not. This decision is distinguishable in regard to the controversy involved in the present case as here the question was as to whether revision against the remand order passed under Section 11 of the Act would be maintainable or not. Recording of finding of fact would be a later stage if the revision is entertained and any finding recorded by the Settlement officer Consolidation is reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by substituting another finding, therefore, this decision is of no help to the petitioner. So far as decision rendered in Triveni Singh (supra) is concerned, in view of the Division Bench decision in Deena Nath (supra) this will have no persuasive value. So far as decision rendered in Sher Singh (supra) is concerned, wherein power of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act has been dealt with but that is not in regard to the question as to whether revision against the order of remand passed under Section 11 of the Act is maintainable or not, therefore, this case also does not have any direct bearing on the point. 8. Before the Division Bench of this Court in Deena Nath (supra) following questions were referred to be answered: “(i) Whether an order passed in appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Settlement Officer Consolidation deciding the appeal finally by setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and revision is barred against such order under Section 48. (ii) Whether the law down in Ajab Singh and others v. Jt. Director of Consolidation and others, 1996 RD 104, Rajbir v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1999 (90) RD 313, Rajit Ram Singh and others v. Mahadev Singh and others, 2002 (93) RD 224, lay down the correct law.” 9. (ii) Whether the law down in Ajab Singh and others v. Jt. Director of Consolidation and others, 1996 RD 104, Rajbir v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1999 (90) RD 313, Rajit Ram Singh and others v. Mahadev Singh and others, 2002 (93) RD 224, lay down the correct law.” 9. The Court after detailed discussion and considering the various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court has answered the reference as under: “(1) an order passed in appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Settlement Officer Consolidation deciding the appeal finally by setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and revision is not barred against such order under Section 48. (2) the law down in Ajab Singh and others v. Jt. Director of Consolidation and others, 1996 RD 104, Rajbir v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1999 (90) RD 313, Rajit Ram Singh and others v. Mahadev Singh and others, 2002 (93) RD 224, do not lay down the correct law.” 10. The Apex Court in Preetam Singh (supra) has also taken the same view. For ready reference paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below: “”When the matter was in revision before the Assistant director (Consolidation), he had the entire matter before him and his jurisdiction was unfettered. While in seisin of the matter in his revisional jurisdiction, he was in complete control and in position to test the correctness of the order made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) effecting remand. In other words, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the Assistant Director (Consolidation) could examine the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer as to the abandonment of the land in dispute by those tenants who had been recorded at the crucial time in the Khasra of 1359 Fasli. That power as a superior Court the Assistant Director (Consolidation) had, even if the remand order of the Settlement Officer had not been specifically put to challenge in separate and independent proceedings. It is noteworthy that the Court of the Assistant Director (Consolidation) is a Court of revisional jurisdiction otherwise having suo moto power to correct any order of the subordinate officer. It is noteworthy that the Court of the Assistant Director (Consolidation) is a Court of revisional jurisdiction otherwise having suo moto power to correct any order of the subordinate officer. In this situation the Assistant Director (Consolidation) should not have felt fettered in doing complete justice between the parties when the entire matter was before him. The war of legalistics fought in the High Court was of no material benefit to the appellants. A decision on merit covering the entire controversy was due from the Assistant Director (Consolidation).” 11. In view of the foregoing discussions and the law laid down on the point I endorse the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolation holding that the revision is maintainable. 12. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner at the last has contended that while passing the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made several observations touching the merit of the case and the petitioner’s case would be prejudiced. Suffice is to observe that what ever observation has been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation touching the merit of the case that has only been made in order to strengthen his view that order of remand is not an interlocutory order, therefore, I am of the opinion that the observation made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not conclusive and it is open for the parties to argue the case on merit while deciding the revision. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. 14. However, it is observed that the revision itself be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned counsel for the parties and without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order dated 4.10.2007 touching the merit of the case. It is also observed that during the pendency of the revision no third party right shall be created over the land in dispute.