NAGESHWAR vs DOOIJI

The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Director (Consolidation) erred in setting aside the orders dated 5.6.1984, 23.9.1991, and 14.11.1991, as these orders were not under challenge and had already been set aside by the Settlement Officer. The Court emphasized that the Deputy Director should have remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision instead of directing the recording of the disputed land as 'Navin Parti'. The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer for a decision on merits, ensuring an opportunity for hearing to all parties involved.