JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not to be issued to the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 3. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 30.6.1982 passed by the respondent No. 2/Settlement Officer, Jaunpur as well as order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur. 4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that on the basis of compromise, order dated 23.6.1980 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, District Jaunpur/respondent No. 3, copy of which is appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Against the aforesaid order, private respondents filed appeal before the respondent No. 2. The said appeal was allowed by the respondent No. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur vide its order dated 30.6.1982 and the matter was remanded before the Consolidation Officer, to decide the matter on merits. Against the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred by the present petitioners before the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur. The said revision was dismissed by him vide order dated 30.11.2019. Findings were recorded that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 is a perfect and valid order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required. In the aforesaid order, directions were also given to the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer who will decide the matter on merits. 5. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that by order impugned 30.6.1982, the matter was rightly remanded back by the respondent No. 2 in the Court below. In the case of Ram Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow,: 2017 (134) RD 25 it has already been held by this Court that remand order is a interlocutory order which does not terminate the proceedings. It is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the order of remand after final judgment made on remand.
In the case of Ram Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow,: 2017 (134) RD 25 it has already been held by this Court that remand order is a interlocutory order which does not terminate the proceedings. It is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the order of remand after final judgment made on remand. In the case of Dularey and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 (99) RD 174 it has been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if the Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration, there was absolutely no justification either on the fact or law for the Revisional Court to interfere in the order of the Appellate authority. It appears from the record that no legal injuries was caused to the petitioner by the order dated 30.6.1982 passed by the respondent No. 2. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners made a prayer that a direction be issued to the respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Jaunpur to decide the matter pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the respondent No. 1 expeditiously and within a time bound period. 7. Considering the prayer made by the Counsel for the petitioners, without entering into merits of the case and without interfering in the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by respondent No. 1 this petition is disposed of directing the Consolidation Officer Jaunpur/respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the case in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.