JUDGMENT : B. Dikshit, J. This writ petition arises out of two objections, one being filed by petitioners Rajendra Prasad. Chunkawan and Shyam Lal while other by Ganga and Malku son of Bodhi, Rajju son of Sheodarshan. In both the objections, it was prayed that the name of respondent No. 2 Rant is farzi and. therefore, her name be deleted. The objections were contested by Smt. Rani. She claimed that she being daughter of Ram Gopal, the husband of last tenure-holder, her name is rightly recorded over disputed Khata. The petitioners disputed Smt. Rani's parentage also. They claimed that Smt. Rani is not daughter of Ram Gopal. As Consolidation Authorities finally held Smt. Rani to be daughter of Ram Gopal, the pedigree on the basis of which this petition has been contested stands settled as follows : XXX 2. The main dispute between parties in this petition is as to whether Ram Gopal pre-deceased Chittu? There is no dispute between parties that Smt. Vadi was last tenure-holder on whose death succession opened u/s 172 read with Section 171 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short 'Act'). According to petitioners, Ram Gopal pre-deceased Chittu and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi, the succession has to be determined through last male tenure-holder Chittu while Smt, Rani claimed that Chittu predeceased his son Ram Gopal and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi. she (Smt. Rani) succeeded as Ram Gopal's daughter. 3. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 14.3.81 allowed petitioners' objection and directed expunction of name of Smt. Rani. Dissatisfied with the order of Consolidation Officer. Smt. Rani preferred appeal. The appeal was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Ban da by order dated 24.8.82, who upheld the claim of Smt. Rani and ordered that name of Smt. Rani recorded in basic year of consolidation operation shall continue. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision. A compromise was filed in revision according to which Smt. Rani was not to get any share. Smt. Rani disputed that compromise and claimed that she did not enter into it. The revisional authority did not determine the dispute about entering of parties into compromise but by order dated 20.4.87 set aside the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and remanded the case for determining validity of compromise and to what extent it will affect the share of parties. The revisional authority did not determine the dispute about entering of parties into compromise but by order dated 20.4.87 set aside the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and remanded the case for determining validity of compromise and to what extent it will affect the share of parties. The revisional authority directed for decision afresh by Settlement Officer, Consolidation keeping in view the effect of said compromise. The Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation, Banda, re-examined the matter in compliance of remand order. It held the compromise to be invalid. He recorded finding of fact that as Ram Gopal pre-deceased Chittu and, therefore, the succession on death of Smt. Vadi is to be determined through Chittu, who was last male tenure-holder. Smt. Rani preferred a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. As the succession to Smt. Vadi was dependent on answer to the question if Ram Gopal predeceased Chittu or he died after Chittu, the petitioners led additional evidence at revisional stage. They filed certified copies of Khatauni of the year 1382F and 1363 to 1365F on 19.4,97. As additional evidence was led In revision, the revisional authority provided an opportunity of rebuttal to Smt. Rani Devi also. Smt. Rani Devi in rebuttal filed a copy of order of Tehsildar of the year 1957 passed in mutation which was numbered as a Case No. 1386, and a copy of the statement of village Lekhpal, which he made in that case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda. after taking into consideration additional evidence led by parties and holding that on death of Chittu, Ram Gopal succeeded and, therefore, the succession is to be determined from Ram Gopal, allowed the revision by order dated 30.4.1997. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that Chittu pre-deceased Ram Gopal and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional power could not have interfered in finding of fact recorded by authorities subordinate to him. He contended that if the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the opinion that findings of fact are to be recorded afresh in view of additional evidence led before him, then the only course open to him was to remand the matter to Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to reconsider the case of parties in the light of additional evidence held in the case. He contended that the Supreme Court of India has led in the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others. 1994 Su 2 SCC 198, that a Deputy Director of Consolidation u/s 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not have power to record finding of fact after re-appreciating the evidence. 5. No interference is required in this case in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reason is that petitioners wanted to lead additional evidence in support of finding of fact recorded by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which was allowed to be led in revision, therefore It became necessary for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to re-consider the evidence and record finding of fact afresh after considering additional evidence led by parties. In the case of Ram Dufar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra), the effect of leading additional evidence on the power of revisional authorities did not come-up for consideration. The Apex Court was not called upon in that case to answer the question if the revisional authority has power u/s 48 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act to re-appreciate evidence and interfere In the findings of fact recorded by appellate authority where additional evidence is prayed for and is permitted to be led by revisional authority. The question can be better answered in the light of decision of the Apex Court in Preetam Singh v. Assistant Director (Consolidation), 1996 II All CJ 706, which is a subsequent decision, wherein the Apex Court held that : "When the matter was in revision before the Assistant Director (Consolidation), he had the entire matter before him and his Jurisdiction was unfettered. While in seizin of the matter in his revisional jurisdiction, he was in complete control and in position to test the correctness of the order made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) effecting remand. In other words, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the Assistant Director (Consolidation) could examine the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer as to the abandonment of the land in dispute by those tenants who had been recorded at the crucial time in the Khasra of 1359 Fasti. That power as a superior court the Assistant Director (Consolidation) had. even if the remand order of the Settlement Officer had not been specifically put to challenge in separate and independent proceedings. That power as a superior court the Assistant Director (Consolidation) had. even if the remand order of the Settlement Officer had not been specifically put to challenge in separate and independent proceedings. It is noteworthy that the court of the Assistant Director (Consolidation) is a court of revisional jurisdiction otherwise having suo motu power to correct any order of the subordinate officer. In this situation the Assistant Director (Consolidation) should not have fell fettered in doing complete justice between the parties when the entire matter was before him. The war of legalistics fought in the High Court was of no material benefit to the appellants. A decision on merit covering the entire controversy was due from the Assistant Director (Consolidation)." 6. Considering the present case in the light of observations of Apex Court in Preetam Singh's case (supra), it is held that when the complete matter was before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision, there was no fetter on the power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to Interfere in the finding of fact, specially when it required reassessment of evidence in view of additional evidence brought on the record of the case. It was not necessary for him to send the case back to Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation for decision afresh. In view of decision in Preetam Singh's case (supra), it is held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did have the power to re-appreciate evidence in view of additional evidence allowed to be led in revision, he rightly decided the dispute himself finally In view of the fact that parties are litigating pretty long-time since 1980, when objections were filed. 7. The writ petition falls and is dismissed.