JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari and Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. Shashi Kant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Brief facts of the case are that recorded tenure holders had executed a Sale-deed in favour of Subhash Chandra Khandelwal and Saroj Agrawal in respect to plot No-48/10, 59 M, 60 M situated at Village-Dibdiba, Tehsil-Bilaspur, District-Rampur. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed name of Subhash Chandra Khandelwal and Saroj Agrawal were recorded under Section-12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act). Saroj Agrawal later on executed a sale-dead in favour of respondent No.3/ Surendra Singh @ Surendra Singh Grover. Subhash Chandra Khandelwal had executed a sale-deed on12.4.2005 in favour of petitioner No 3. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed dated 12.4.2005 name of petitioner No.3 was recorded in the revenue record and he further executed sale deed on 30.1.2017 in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly name of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 was recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 23.3.2017 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No-118/2016-2017 under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H.Act against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 23.3.2017 which was registered as Case No-0139 of 2023 Computerized Case No-202354135900000139 before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur/respondent No-2. The aforementioned revision was heard & allowed vide impugned order dated 7.12.2023 setting aside the order dated 23.3.2017 and remanded the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section-12 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief: "(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.12.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Rampur, in Revison no. 0139 of 2023 Surendra Singh v. Prem Lal Mittha and 2 others' u/s 48(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 contained in the Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. (2). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over chak no. 0139 of 2023 Surendra Singh v. Prem Lal Mittha and 2 others' u/s 48(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 contained in the Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. (2). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over chak no. 137 gata no 48/10M/0.733 hectare and chak no. 236 gata no. 48/10M 0.164H, 59M/0.013 and 60M/0.102 total 3 plots area 0.279 H entire area 1.012 hectare situated in VillageDibdiba,Tehsil Bilaspur, District-Rampur." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the sale-deed executed on 30.1.2017 is challenged or cancelled in accordance with law the order dated 23.3.2017 passed under Section-12 of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be challenged or set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section-48 of U.P.C.H. Act and remand made to the Court of Consolidation Officer is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has no locus to challenge the order dated 23.3.2017 passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act, as petitioner No. 1 &2 are vendees of petitioner No. 3. but revisional Court has failed to examine the issue in proper manner, as such the impugned revisional order dated 7.12.2023 is wholly illegal. He further submitted that nature of the land has been changed in view of the order dated 28.4.2017 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 5(c) of U.P.C.H. Act as such remand order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the proceeding under section-12 of U.P.CH. Act afresh is abuse of process of law. He submitted that impugned order dated 7.12.2023 is liable to be set aside & order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 23.3.2017 be affirmed 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 23.3.2017 without notice and opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 3 although respondent No. 3 was recorded owner of the plot in dispute at the relevant point of time as such the impugned order has been rightly passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section-48 of UP.CH.Act. He further submitted that under the impugned order the matter has been remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section-12 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties which requires no interference as petitioner have full opportunity to contest their case on merit before Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that proceeding under Section-12 of U.P.C.H. Act can not be decided without framing issues & giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 23.3.2017 under Section-12 of U.P.C.H. Act for recording the name of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 on the basis of sale deed executed on 30.1.2017 by petitioner No. 1. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by respondent No.3 against the order dated 23.03.2017 has been allowed setting aside the order dated 23.03.2017 after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act and matter has been remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section-12 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section-12 of U.P. C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under: "12. Decision of matters relating to changes and transactions affecting rights or interests recorded in revised records. - (1) All matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under Sections 7 to 9 were started or were in progress, may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, but not later than the date of notification under Section 52, or under sub-section (1) of Section 6. (2) The provisions of Sections 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections." 8. The perusal of Rule 26 (2) of U.P.CH. (2) The provisions of Sections 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections." 8. The perusal of Rule 26 (2) of U.P.CH. Rules will be also relevant, which is as under:- "26-(2) On the date fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25-A, or on any subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the objections." 9. In the instant matter, Assistant Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has passed the order for recording the name of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of compromise entered into between vendor (petitioner N0.3) and vendees (petitioner Nos-1 & 2) on the basis of sale-deed executed on 30.1.2017 in respect to plot No. 48/10M, 59M, 60M although respondent No. 3 was also recorded owner of certain area of plot No-48/10 M, 59 M and 60M, but respondent No. 3 was not impleaded in the proceeding as such order dated 30.1.2017 is exparte against him. According to petitioners respondent No.3 has no locus to intervene the proceeding under section-12 of U.P.CH. Act but according to respondent No. 3 he was recorded over the plot in dispute and his right and title has affected under order dated 23.03.2017 as such without notice & opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3 no order can be passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to plot in question. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case has rightly exercised the revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order dated 23.03.2017 after granting benefit of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act and remitting the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh after proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law 11. In pursuance of the remand order dated 7.12.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, both parties will have opportunity to contest the proceeding as well as lead evidence in support of their claim which they are raising before this Court as such there is no need to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against impugned revisional order dated 23.03.2017. 12. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 7.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. However, Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the proceeding under Section-12 of U.P.C.H.Act afresh in pursuance of the revisional order dated 7.12.2023 after framing proper issues and affording opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.