JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.5.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda, remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh after giving full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 2. The dispute relates to plot no. 307/3 measuring 8 Bighas 6 Biswas situate in Village Gajni, pargana and district Banda. The petitioner was recorded in the basic year as Sirdar and one Shiv Pujan was recorded in Class 9. The petitioner filed an objection praying for the expunsion of the name of Shiv Pujan. The contesting respondent no. 2 Shiv Lal Singh also filed an objection claiming sirdari rights on the basis of possession. 3. Shiv Pujan and the petitioner after leading evidence entered into a compromise before the Consolidation Officer, who by his order dated 26.11.76 expunged the name of Shiv Pujan from Class 9 entry and allowed the basic year entry to continue. 4. After the case was compromised between the petitioner and Shiv Pujan, the case proceeded between the petitioner and Shiv Lal Singh, respondent no. 2. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 30.11.76 rejected the objection of the respondent no. 2 and found that the entry of Class 9 in favour of the respondent no. 2 was unauthorised, forged and was not in accordance with law and also recorded a finding that the respondent no. 2 was not in possession. Settlement Officer consolidation dismissed the appeal of the respondent no. 2 against which he went in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation it was argued on behalf of the revisionist that the dispute was not only with regard 1 Bigha 11 Biswas of plot no. 307/3 but with regard to 8 Bighas 6 Biswas. Shiv Pujan has contested the case only with regard to 1 Bighas 11 Biswas. It was also stated that the copy of PA 10 was not forged. The validity of AP-10 has been proved by the revisionist by producing Ram Gopal who was Lekhpal at that time. It has also come on record that the revisionist was not given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. Whatsoever evidence was led by the petitioner that was with regard to an area of 1 Bigha 11 Biswas only and not with regarding to the remaining area. It has also come on record that the revisionist was not given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. Whatsoever evidence was led by the petitioner that was with regard to an area of 1 Bigha 11 Biswas only and not with regarding to the remaining area. 6. Before the Consolidation Officer Shiv Pujan was examined on 19.10.1976 and 26 11.1976. It is not clear from the record as to on whose behalf Shiv Pujan was cross examined. The petitioner was examined on 9.10.1976, but he was also not cross examined. Shiv Pujan was again examined on 26.11.1976 and he was cross examined on behalf of the revisionist. There is no explanation on record as to why Shiv Pujan and the petitioner were examined again. Since from the record it appears that the Consolidation Authorities have confined themselves to an area of 1 Bigha 11 Biswas out of total area of 8 Bighas 6 Biswas, as such the real controversy has not been gone into them. With this view the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has sent back the case again to the Consolidation Officer to give full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence so that justice may be done between the parties. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is in the interest of justice and needs no interference. 7. However, since this is a case of 1976 the Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the case within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him and the appeal, if filed, against that order before the Settlement Officer Consolidation may also be decided within three months from the date of filing of the appeal. Revision, if preferred, against the appellate order may also be decided within three months from the date of filing of the revision. 8. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Certified copy of this judgment may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges within a week.