IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2452 of 2007 Uday Prakash Mishra, son of late Ram Bilash Mishra, resident of Village, Police Station and District Sheohar ------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur 2. The Deputy Director Consolidation, Sitamarhi 3. The Consolidation Officer, Sheohar, District- Sheohar 4. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sheohar, District- Sheohar 5. Jay Prakash Mishra, son of late Ram Bilash Mishra 6. Om Prakash Mishra, son of late Ram Bilash Mishra 7. Shail Bala Mishra, wife of late Ram Bilash Mishra, respondents 5 to 7 resident of Village, Police Station and District-Sheohar. 8. Punam Mishra alias Punam Devi, wife of Prem prakash Mishra, Kabutari Gali, Bal Krishnaganj, Near Tripaulia Hospital, Police Station- Tripaulia, Patnacity. 9.Radha Rani alias Radha Rani Mishra, wife of Sri Madhukar Mishra, resident of Village- Raghopur, Police Station- Bihta, District-Patna 10. Basanti Mishra, wife of Sri Ramjee Mishra, resident of Village Ketaki, Police Station and District- Aurangabad 11. Nilam Devi, wife of Sri Anantachari Mishra, Near Rai Bareli Railway Crossing, House no.405, Police Station and District- Unnao, State Uttar Pradesh 12. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Commissioner, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt.of Bihar, Bihar ---- Respondents. ------------ 2. 16.1.2009 Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar for the petitioner, and learned Junior Counsel to Government Advocate No.10. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.2.2006 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned 2 Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Case No. 652 of 1992 (Uday Prakash Mishra Vrs. Jai Prakash Mishra), in purported exercise of powers under section 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation act, 1956( hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby he has agreed with the order of the learned appellate authority and remitted the matter back to the learned first authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made in the order of the appellate authority. Certain orders had been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sheohar, on 25.7.1979 (Annexure-3) under section 3(x) of the Act in Case No. 2444/79/163. The aggrieved party moved the learned appellate authority which was allowed by the order dated 19.11.1992 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitamarhi, in Appeal No. 251 of 1990 (Jai Prakash Mishra V. Uday Prakash Mishra), whereby he has set aside the order of the learned first authority and remitted the matter back to the learned First authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made in the order. The revision application has been rejected by the impugned order. It appears that the impugned order of the learned appellate authority and the learned revisional authority can not be faulted. The order of the learned first authority has been 3 set aside for a valid reason and has remitted back the matter to him for a fresh decision. Furthermore, law is well settled that the superior courts normally do not interfere with orders of remand.. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)