JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, remanding the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the matter afresh after taking evidence of the parties and after making an enquiry himself to decide the matter as to whether it was Gram Sabha property, and if so, to pass appropriate orders is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The dispute land was entered in the name of Deena in Class 4. Deena filed objections that he has been in possession over the disputed land for the last 35 years and claimed Sirdari rights over it. Another objection was filed by opposite party No. 2 Atma Ram claiming Sirdari rights over the disputed land and that he is in possession over onehalf share of the disputed land which was previously entered in the name of his father Barrister but subsequently by mistake his fathers name has been scored out and the name of Deena petitioner alone has been recorded. It has further been alleged that there has been a partition suit between the parties in which petitioners' half share in the disputed land was recognised. Appearance on behalf of Gram Sabha also was made and it filed a written statement. Before the Consolidation Officer the parties tendered oral and documentary evidence. The Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that Atma Ram, opposite party, had one half share over the disputed land and that the remaining half share belonged to the petitioner. Against this order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the same was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and it was ordered that the name of the petitioner Deena be recorded as exclusive tenure holder over the disputed land. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 Atma Ram filed revision application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who allowed the same and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as aforesaid. No appearance has been put in by Gram Sabha. 3. In this case Gram Sabha was party to the case before the Consolidation Officer and had filed a written statement whereafter Gran Sabha absented itself. 4. Before the Consolidation Officer the parties tendered oral and documentary evidence which is on the record and there is3 thus, no question of tendering any other evidence by the parties. 3. In this case Gram Sabha was party to the case before the Consolidation Officer and had filed a written statement whereafter Gran Sabha absented itself. 4. Before the Consolidation Officer the parties tendered oral and documentary evidence which is on the record and there is3 thus, no question of tendering any other evidence by the parties. There is also no question of making any enquiry by the Consolidation Officer There was enough material on record and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was to decide the case on merits and there was no justification or ground for remanding the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, As such the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed, 5. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. 3, is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to restore back the revision application to its original number and hear and decide the same in accordance with law. It is for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to allow the parties to tender any other evidence in case they desire to do so. There will be no order as to costs.