JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Shanti Devi, respondent in both the writ petitions. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2004 and learned counsel for the parties have agreed that both the writ petitions be finally decided. 3. For deciding both the writ petitions, it is necessary to refer the facts and pleadings of Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2004. 4. One Jagdish Narain Dwivedi was the original tenure holder of agricultural land of village Gothaura, district Mirzapur. Khata No. 32 was recorded in the basic year in the name of Jagdish son of Ram Lakhan. Jagdish died on 3rd October, 1997. An objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by the petitioner with regard to plots of Khata No. 32, i.e., Plot Nos. 66A, 66B, 72 and 241, area 1 bigha, 15 biswa and 6 dhur. The Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise passed an order for recording the name of the petitioner in place of Jagdish, deceased vide his order dated 9th December, 1998. Respondent No. 3, Shanti Devi, filed an appeal against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9th December, 1998 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The appellant stated in the appeal that Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, who was working in Collectorate, Varanasi was the husband of the appellant, who died on 3rd October, 1997. The appellant is the only heir of the deceased. She was busy in taking steps for pension etc. of late Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and when she contacted the Lekhpal for mutating her name, she came to know about the order dated 9th December, 1998. The appellant stated in her appeal that no information or notice was received by the appellant and ex-parte order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set-aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after framing issues and taking evidence. A revision was filed by petitioner against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set-aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after framing issues and taking evidence. A revision was filed by petitioner against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision and while dismissing the revision set-aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9th December, 1998 as well as of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 17th May, 2003 and directed that name of Shanti Devi be recorded in place of Jagdish Narain, deceased. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also directed that file be consigned after Amal Daramad of her name. Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. Writ Petition No. 46780 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner, Shailendra Dwivedi praying for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 4 not to demolish the house of the petitioner situate in village Gothaura, Tahsil Chunar, district Mirzapur and further for a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to restrain respondent No. 4 from interfering in possession of the petitioner over Plots No. 66A, 66B, 72 and 241 of Khata No. 32. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, contended that Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation having remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought not to have directed for recording the name of Smt. Shanti Devi. It is contended that petitioner could not got any opportunity to lead evidence either before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence deciding the dispute between the parties by Deputy Director of Consolidation finally was unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is son of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and this fact was also admitted by Shanti Devi while moving the succession application for withdrawing the amount laying in the name of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi in the State Bank of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is son of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and this fact was also admitted by Shanti Devi while moving the succession application for withdrawing the amount laying in the name of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi in the State Bank of India. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, refuting the submission of the petitioner, contended that petitioner is not the son of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and in fact, he is son of one Janak Dulari Arora, resident of 66, Gandhi Nagar, Sigra, Varanasi, who was working as teacher in Kasturba Mahila Vidyapeeth Intermediate College, Sewapuri, Varanasi. He submitted that Jagdish Narain was resident of Rajgir Tola, district Varanasi along with his wife Shanti Devi and the petitioner or his mother neither lived at Rajgir Tola, Varanasi nor the petitioner is legal heir of late Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that respondent No. 3, Shanti Devi, who has been paid the retiral benefits of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi including pension and gratuity and the petitioner has no right to the agricultural land or any of the property of late Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Before proceeding to consider the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to note certain facts, which from the pleadings of the parties, are not disputed. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on the record, there is no dispute with regard to following facts : (i) Late Jagdish Narain Dwivedi was recorded as tenure holder of plots of Khata No. 32. (ii) Smt. Shanti Devi, respondent No. 3 is legally wedded wife of late Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and after the death of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi she was paid death-cum-retiral benefits of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. (iii) The petitioner is not claimed to be born from the wedlock of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and Smt. Shanti Devi. 10. The case, which has been set-up by the petitioner in this writ petition is that petitioner is son of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and Smt. Janak Dulari Arora, was the second wife of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been specifically stated that Jagdish Narain Dwivedi had two wives namely, Shanti Devi and Janak Dulari Arora. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been specifically stated that Jagdish Narain Dwivedi had two wives namely, Shanti Devi and Janak Dulari Arora. The petitioner was born from the wedlock of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and Janak Dulari Arora. It is further stated that from Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and Smt. Shanti Devi, there was only one daughter, namely, Asha and from Janak Dulari there is two issues, i.e., petitioner and another daughter, namely, Sheema. In the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, it is denied that petitioner is son of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. It is stated that petitioner is mentioned as son of one Janak Dulari Arora, which letter has been filed as Annexure-8 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. It is reiterated that respondent No. 3 Shanti Devi is the only heir of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, deceased. There being no dispute between the parties that Shanti Devi was the wife of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and in fact she has been paid the retiral benefit of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, respondent No. 3 was clearly entitled to get her name recorded over the land in dispute. 11. The only issue, which remains to be decided is as to whether the petitioner can claim succession to Jagdish Narain Dwivedi on his agricultural land of village Gothaura. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed the order on the basis of compromise directing for recording the name of the petitioner in place of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. A finding has been recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation that Assistant Consolidation Officer did not go to the village and made any inquiry before passing the order in favour of the petitioner on the basis of compromise. It has further been held that it is doubtful as to whether two members of the Consolidation Committee signed the compromise. The presence of Pradhan at the time of compromise was not proved. Furthermore, in the objection which was filed by the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi was not made party. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer has thus rightly been set-aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The presence of Pradhan at the time of compromise was not proved. Furthermore, in the objection which was filed by the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi was not made party. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer has thus rightly been set-aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The respondent No. 3 not being impleaded in objection filed by the petitioner, who is wife of late Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer passed in favour of the petitioner dated 9th December, 1998 cannot be sustained and has rightly been set-aside. 12. The main contention is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in himself deciding the dispute between the parties when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer for taking evidence. As noted above, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the claim of both the parties after permitting them to lead evidence. The order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was challenged only by the petitioner, whose revision has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but while dismissing the revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation has conclusively held that it is respondent No. 3 who is entitled to get her name recorded and has set-aside the order of remand made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on several judgments of this Court reported in 1989 Revenue Judgements 310. Chandrika Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1996 A.W.C. 553 (SC); Preetam Singh (Dead) by LRs. and others v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, 1986 A.L.J. 1083; Bashir Ahmad and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1990(90) R.D. 29; Ram Veer Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad and others, 1997(88) R.D. 316; Asha Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda and others and 2007(102) R.D. 113; Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. 14. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that Deputy Director of Consolidation was fully competent to decide the dispute finally and there was no lack of jurisdiction in the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the case finally. 14. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that Deputy Director of Consolidation was fully competent to decide the dispute finally and there was no lack of jurisdiction in the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the case finally. In Chandrika Singh’s case (supra) finding was recorded that Smt. Ramawati was the daughter of Srinath Singh. The said finding was finding of fact, which need no interference in the writ petition. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that a finding recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering entire relevant evidence on record cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. However, it is relevant to note that present is a case where evidence was not lead at any stage. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed the order of compromise, on appeal filed by respondent No. 3 the Settlement Officer of Consolidation remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer for taking evidence. Against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, revision was filed where also no evidence was lead nor any direction was issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to lead evidence. The case of Chandrika Singh (supra) has, thus, no application in facts of the present case. 15. The judgment of the Apex Court in Preetam Singh’s case (supra) was a case in which proposition was laid down that Deputy Director of Consolidation is not bound by an earlier remand order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was not challenged and it was open for him to examine the correctness of remand, which was not challenged. The issue, which has arisen in this writ petition was not in the above case. In Bashir Ahmad’s case (supra) this Court took the view that entire evidence was lead by the parties and discussed before the Consolidation Officer, hence there was no occasion by Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand the matter and the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself ought to have decided the revision on merits. This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh. In the said case also the parties have already lead evidence before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer has discussed the evidence. This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh. In the said case also the parties have already lead evidence before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer has discussed the evidence. In that background this Court held that there was no necessity of remand and the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have decided the matter himself. 16. Ram Veer Singh’s case (supra) was again a case where this Court took the view that Deputy Director of Consolidation has power to see the correctness of the order and when he was satisfied that there was evidence on record he should decide the case on the basis of evidence. Asha Ram’s case (supra) was a case where this Court held that Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 confers the power to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to correct the error of law and facts as recorded by subordinate authority. There cannot be any dispute to the above proposition laid down in the said case. Sita Ram’s case (supra) was a case where the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision and for giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In the said case, this Court set-aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was also permitted to take additional evidence himself. 17. From the proposition as laid down in various judgments of this Court, as noted above, it is clear that Deputy Director of Consolidation is fully empowered to decide a dispute finally where the evidence is already on the record. The present is a case where at no stage parties were given any opportunity to lead evidence. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation while remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer after setting aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer specifically directed that parties may lead evidence before the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order has observed that revisionist has not filed any documentary or oral evidence that he is the heir of deceased Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. It was further observed that apart from affidavit before the appellate authority, no documentary evidence has been filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order has observed that revisionist has not filed any documentary or oral evidence that he is the heir of deceased Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. It was further observed that apart from affidavit before the appellate authority, no documentary evidence has been filed. He further observed that in the revision also no documentary evidence has been filed. 18. It is to be noted that revision was filed by the petitioner against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation remanding the matter to Consolidation Officer. The petitioner was challenging the remand order and was praying that order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation be set-aside. There was no revision filed by respondent No. 3 challenging the remand order. It is true that had the evidence were on the record, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could have decided the matter himself. It is not shown from the record that Deputy Director of Consolidation at any point of time gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence so as to decide the dispute between the parties. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not record any finding on the case of the petitioner and had remanded the matter permitting the parties to lead evidence. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision of the petitioner and while dismissing the revision set-aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in so far as remand was made. In appropriate case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation may adopt such course but in facts of the present case without giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the rights of the parties could not have been foreclosed since the determination by the competent Court shall operate as res-judicata in so far as rights of the parties are concerned. An opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner to prove his case that he was also entitled to succeed the properties of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. 19. From the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that in so far as the recording of the name of respondent No. 3 Shanti Devi, wife of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi is concerned, no error can be pointed out. Shanti Devi being wife of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, her name was rightly directed to be recorded in place of deceased Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and to that extent I am not inclined to interfere with the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Shanti Devi being wife of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, her name was rightly directed to be recorded in place of deceased Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and to that extent I am not inclined to interfere with the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, in so far as the Deputy Director of Consolidation finally closed the matter by directing consigning the records after Amal Daramad, the said part is liable to be set-aside. The petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to lead evidence to prove his case. The parties having not lead evidence, it is not proper to express any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner except that respondent No. 3 not being denied wife of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, recording of her name is not interfered with. 20. Coming to Writ Petition No. 46780 of 2005, suffice it to say that till the petitioner is found entitled to succeed to Jagdish Narain Dwivedi the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. Writ Petition No. 46780 of 2005 is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner in claiming his right to agricultural land and house in the event petitioner is found entitled to succeed before the consolidation authorities. 21. In the result Writ Petition No. 46780 of 2005 is dismissed with the above observation and Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2004 is partly allowed with the following directions : (1) The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation in so far as it directed the record to be consigned is set-aside. The order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer is restored. Parties may appear before the Consolidation Officer and lead their respective evidence. (2) The name of Smt. Shanti Devi shall continue to be recorded in the records in place of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. (3) The limited issue, which shall be decided by the Consolidation Officer is as to whether the petitioner is also entitled to succeed to the agricultural land of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi. 22. Parties shall bear their own costs. ———