JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Shrii Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arya Shreshtha Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to other private parties is dispensed with. 3. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi Camp, Sultanpur in Appeal No. 72/ 363, under Rule 109-A(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954, and the order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision Nos. 2238/267, 2240/1174, 2241/ 1175, under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 4. In the proceedings under Section 109A(3) the Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 11.04.1991, against which one Surya Narayan, who had purchased some part of New Gata No. 199/2-1-8 from Rajendra Bahadur Singh, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2001 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. Three revisions were filed. One by petitioners and two by others, which were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 18.12.2001, against the order dated 18.12.2001, Writ Petition No. 142 (Cons.) of 2002 was filed before this Court by the petitioners, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2002 with the observation that no interference in the orders dated 07.3.2001 and 18.12.2001 was required. This Court provided that since the matter had been remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, he would look into the matter and see that the land which has been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh, has been allotted to the petitioner and in place thereof Rajendra Bahadur Singh has been allotted some other piece of land. It was provided that the Settlement Officer Consolidation will also see feasibility of accommodating the person in whose favour the title of the land has been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh through the sale deed and the appropriate orders shall be passed by him. The order dated 11.03.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 142 (Cons.) of 2002 is being reproduced as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel. The order dated 11.03.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 142 (Cons.) of 2002 is being reproduced as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision Nos.270/1356, 271/1357 and 1113 by which the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur in Appeal No. 72 (Surya Narain Vs. Rajendra Bahadur Singh and others) has been upheld. The case was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside on the ground that Rajendra Bahadur Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 4, namely, Surya Narain who transferred his title from the land in respect of Gata No. 199 situate at village Randauli, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil-Sadar, District Sultanpur. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Gata which had been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh was not, in fact his land but other land was allotted to the petitioner and Rajendra Bahadur Singh was allotted some other Gata. Since the matter had been remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation Officer concerned, he will look into the matter and see that the land which has been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh, has been allotted to the petitioner and in place thereof Rajendra Bahadur Singh has been allotted some other piece of land. He will also see feasibility of accommodating the person in whose favour the title of the land has been transferred by Rajendr Bahadur Singh through the sale deed and the appropriate orders shall be passed by him. With the observations no interference in the orders dated 07.03.2001 and 18.12.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur respectively is required. The writ petition stands disposed of." 5. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, appears to have misread the order of this Court dated 11.03.2002, as is evident from the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.09.2012, annexed as Annexure-7, as in first paragraph, it has been mentioned that this Court had quashed the order dated 07.03.2001 and the order dated 18.12.2001 vide judgment dated 11.03.2002, whereas no interference was made by this Court in the orders dated 07.03.2000 and 18.12.2000. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, however, by order dated 27.09.2012 remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision, against which the petitioners filed the Revision No. 2238/267. Two other revisions were also filed, by other persons. All the three revisions were dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation vide order dated 27.03.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal filed by Surya Narayan was not maintainable, as he was not the party in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. Consequently, the order passed by the Settlement Officer 07.03.2000, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision, is without jurisdiction. 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the appeal filed by Surya Narayan was maintainable as he felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, and as such, even if he was not a party before the Consolidation Officer the appeal was maintainable. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the material on record. 9. From the facts narrated as above, it is evident that in the earlier round of litigation, in Writ Petition No. 142 (Cons.) of 2002, Surya Narayan was opposite party No. 4. The matter was remanded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 07.03.2001 with which this Court did not interfere and the person in whose favour the title of the land was transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh being Surya Narayan, it is now not open to the petitioner to raise such an argument, contrary to the directions of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2002. By order dated 07.03.2001 the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, for fresh decision, the Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 27.09.2012 has again remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. On this count the order dated 27.09.2012 calls for no interference. 10. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. The Consolidation Officer, however, is directed to expeditiously decide the pending matters, say, within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of this order before the said authority, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 10. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. The Consolidation Officer, however, is directed to expeditiously decide the pending matters, say, within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of this order before the said authority, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The directions given by this Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2002 to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, since the matter has now been remanded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Consolidation Officer, shall be binding upon and shall be followed by the Consolidation Officer as mentioned in the order dated 11.03.2002, as well.