JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri. Mohammad Aslam Khan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Shadab Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "DDC"), in Revision No. 264 of 2023, Computerized Case No. 2020531046000052 (Heeralal and Others v. Nattha and Others) and Revision No. 265 of 2023, Computerized Case No. 2020531046000053 (Baburam v. Nattha and Others) filed under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). The respondent no.1, vide impugned order dated 26.10.2023, remanded the matter back to Consolidation Officer Malihabad, Lucknow for deciding the matter afresh, after framing necessary issues and after providing proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The respondent no.1, vide impugned order dated 26.10.2023, remanded the matter back to Consolidation Officer Malihabad, Lucknow for deciding the matter afresh, after framing necessary issues and after providing proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The relevant paragraph of order dated 26.10.2023 reads as under: " leLr vkns'kksa ds voyksdu ,oa ijh{k.k djus ds ckn i=koyh esa layXu lHkh lk{;ksa dk ewY;kadu esjs }kjk fd;k x;kA ewY;kadu ds mijkUr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk tks vkns'k fnukad 6&12&1990 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk tks vkns'k 14&12&2020 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k gS nksuksa vkns'k =qfViw.kZ gSaA bl i=koyh dk eq[; fookn Jherh Qqfy;k fo/kok tqjk[ku dh e'R;q ds ckn mudh thfor nks iqf=;ka Jherh Qqfy;k iRuh nqtZu izlkn o Jherh nqykjk iRuh uUgs izlkn ds thfor jgrs Jherh nqykjk ds igys ifr eksgu yky ds uqRQs ls mRiUu iq= eksygs dk uke fdl fu;e dkuwu ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 2&11&1958 dks Jherh Qqfy;k ds LFkku ij ntZ dj fn;k x;k vkSj ;gh fookfnr vkjkth xkVk la0 129@938 o 130 ftldk dqy jdck 4&1&0 gS bldk cSukek eksygs ;k eksygw iq= eksgu yky }kjk xq:pju iq= jkek/khu ds uke fd;k x;k gSA blds lEcU/k esa fuxjkuhdrkZ ghjkyky o vU; rFkk ckcw jke }kjk iz'u fpUg mBk;k x;k gS rFkk muds }kjk ;g dgk x;k gS fd pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 6&12&1990 vkSj cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh y[kuA }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 14&12&2020 rduhdh vk/kkj ij fof/k jfgr vkns'k ikfjr gSA fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds bl fuxjkuh vkSj rdZ ls eSa lger gw¡ D;ksafd mDr nksuksa vkns'kksa ls ekSfyd U;k; nsus ds fy;s rF;ksa dk fo"kys'k.k ugha fd;k x;k gS tcfd ek0 mPPkre U;k;ky; }kjk Li"V :i ls ;g vfHker fn;k x;k gS fd izfdz;k fof/k dk iz;ksx ekSfyd U;k; dks nsus vkSj mldks LFkkfir djus ds fy;s gksuk pkfg,A fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dh rjQ ls ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; dk tks n'"VkUr 'kdqUryknsoh tSu cuke dqUry dqekjh o vU; ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1969 ist 575 iw.kZ ihB vkSj ljkstuh Vh0 dEiuh fy0 cuke dysDVj vkQ fMczwx<+ vle ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1962 ist 1264 esa fn;k x;k gS ml vfHker ls lger gksrs gq, fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ghjkyky vU; o ckcwjke vkfn dh fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;k tkuk fof/kd ,oa vko';d gS bl fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij mDr nksuksa fuxjkfu;ka fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k xzke lSFkk ijxuk o rglhy tuin y[kuA ds vk/kkj o"kZ [kkrk la0 60 ds xkVk la0 129@138 jdck 2&9&0 xkVk la0 130 jdck 1&12&0 ds lEcU/k esa iwoZ ikfjr pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fnukad 6&12&1990 rFkk cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh y[kuA dk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 14&12&2020 rFkk fu;e 109 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15&5&2015 rFkk pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fnukad 28&11&1990 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk bl i=koyh dks pdcUnh vf/kdkjh lnj y[kuA U;k;ky; dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fuxjkuh la0 114 esa iwoZ fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 31&12&1980 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq,] vko';drkuqlkj okn fcUnq fufeZr djds lHkh i{kksa dks lk{; dk volj nsrs gq, fof/kd :i ls bl okn dk fuLrkj.k djsa rFkk ;g Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS dh okn dk xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij rhu ekg ds vUnj fuLrkj.k fd;k tk;sA lHkh i{k bl i=koyh esa viuh lquok;h gsrq fnukad 06&11&2023 dks pdcUnh vf/kdkjh lnj U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksaA ;gh vkns'k nksuksa fuxjkfu;ksa ij ykxw gksxkA i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQ-rj gksA " 3. While assailing the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 passed by opposite party no.1, Sri. M.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel, based upon the judgment dated 16.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 295 of 2023 (Jagadamba Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others) and the judgment passed in the case of Angad Pratap Singh and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, and Others reported in 2023(3) ADJ 291 (LB), submitted that in remanding the matter back before the Consolidation Officer the respondent no.1/D.D.C. has committed an error in law and facts both. It is in view of Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953') including the Explanation 3 and the law settled in the judgment referred, as according to the same the respondent no.1/D.D.C. is empowered to consider and decide the case on merits. As such indulgence of this Court is required. 4. He further submitted that the matter in issue is pending since 22.8.1975 when the objections under section 9 of the Act were filed by Tika Ram and Smt. Phuliya and the opposite party no.1 for the first time remaned the matter to the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.12.1980 (annexure no.2) and after decision of the case by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the opposite party no.1 again vide order dated 6.7.2018 (annexure no.9) remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and lastly by the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 (annexure no.11), the opposite party no.1 again remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer and thus in these facts of the case the impugned order of remand dated 26.10.2023 is liable to be interfered. 5. Sri. Khan also submitted that the successive orders of remand are not permissible and instead of deciding the matter, the authorities cannot be allowed to its embarses to smoulder and to remand the matter to the trial court which is not permissible, thereby the order passed is vitiated in law. 6. Prayer is to allow the petition and set aside the order impugned dated 26.10.2023 and remanded the matter back to D.D.C. for deciding the matter afresh. 7. Opposing this petition, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that no doubt that the law is well settled. 6. Prayer is to allow the petition and set aside the order impugned dated 26.10.2023 and remanded the matter back to D.D.C. for deciding the matter afresh. 7. Opposing this petition, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that no doubt that the law is well settled. The D.D.C. can pass the final order on merits after considering the facts and evidence available on record, as held by this Court in the judgments on which the reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Advocate Sri. Khan. However in the peculiar facts of the case, this Court may not interfere in the order. 8. Elaborating the aforesaid, he stated that after the order impugned dated 26.10.2023, in which the date was fixed by D.D.C. i.e. 06.11.2023 for the appearance of the parties before C.O. and on 06.11.2023 the parties appeared in terms of the impugned order of remand and before C.O. one application for impleadment was prefer with a prayer to implead one Akhilesh as one of the parties to the proceedings and on the said application, the petitioner-Nattha sought time to file objection and thereafter filed the objection and the C.O. after due consideration allowed the application for impleadment, which is evident from order dated 03.02.2024, annexed as part of Annexure No. SA-1, to the supplementary affidavit dated 23.02.2024 filed by opposite party no.4. 9. He also stated that Heera Lal one of the parties to the proceedings in terms of the order of remand adduced the evidence and the newly impleaded party Akhilesh has also adduced the evidence as is evident from the order(s) dated 18.01.2024 and 22.02.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, which are on record as part of Annexure No. SA-1. 10. He further submitted that in terms of order of remand, the Consolidation Officer, is proceedings in the matter so as to conclude the proceedings expeditiously as the respondent no.1/D.D.C. in the impugned order has directed to conclude the proceedings within three months. 11. He further submitted that matter is fixed for evidence of petitioner and he is avoiding the proceedings. As such in the facts of the case, this Court may not interfere in the order impugned. 12. Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record. 13. 11. He further submitted that matter is fixed for evidence of petitioner and he is avoiding the proceedings. As such in the facts of the case, this Court may not interfere in the order impugned. 12. Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record. 13. It is to be noted that present petition was presented in the Registry of this Court on 04.12.2003 and for the first time it was taken up by this Court on 07.12.2003, however, no interim protection was granted to the petitioners. 14. The law, as referred by Sri. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, is settled, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of remand dated 26.10.2023 passed by the D.D.C. It is for the following reasons:- (i) After impugned order of remand dated 26.10.2023 one Akhilesh has been impleaded in the case. (ii) The C.O. has proceeded in the matter and the evidence of Heera Lal as also Akhilesh (impleaded in case after impugned order dated 26.10.2023) have adduced their evidence. (iii) The case is fixed for evidence of Nattha-petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed. 15. Taking note of the fact that dispute is pending since 1975 and parties are struggling for their rights since then, the respondent no.2/C.O. is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously say within a period of three months from today. He shall not grant any adjournment to any of the parties and shall make endeavour to proceed in the matter on day-to-day basis.