Vikram Nath, J.;- Both the Writ Petitions arise out of the same order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but have been filed by the different parties as such they are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel representing all the private respondents. With the consent of the counsel for parties both the writ petitions are being decided finally at the stage of admission itself, under Rules of the Court. 3. The dispute before the Consolidation Officer related to Khata Nos.26 and 26A of Village Narottampur Kala, Pargana Dehat Dehat Amanat, District Varanasi. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 10.11.2005 decided the shares between the parties with regard to the two khatas referred to above. The appeal was filed by Pramod Kumar the petitioner in the Writ Petition No.61560 of 2010 and the respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.57942 of 2010. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 22.10.2009 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the shares between the parties with regard to Khata Nos. 26, 26A and 145 of the Village in question. Aggrieved by the same revision was filed by Pramod Kumar, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 07.08.2010. It is against these orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to Khata No.145 the dispute had already been decided by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 27.05.1995, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 in the Writ Petition No.57942 of 2010 and as Annexure 5 in the Writ Petition No.61560 of 2010. It is further submitted that Khata No.145 was not subject matter of dispute before the Consolidation Officer. 5. The argument thus advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed illegality in including Khata No.145 while remanding the matter. It is further submitted that Khata No.145 was not subject matter of dispute before the Consolidation Officer. 5. The argument thus advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed illegality in including Khata No.145 while remanding the matter. The Submissions advanced is that once the dispute with regard to Khata No.145 had already been decided and settled between the parties vide order dated 27.05.1995 and the said order having become final as none of the parties assailed the same before any higher forum, the same could not be reopened. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri R.C.Singh has not been able to meet out the said argument of the petitioner. He has not been able to justify as to how Khata No.145 was included in the remand order and how the dispute with regard to said Khata No.145 could be reopened. Further the statement of Sri R.C. Singh has been recorded in the order dated 07.10.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.61560 of 2010 that instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court and staying further proceedings pursuant to the remand, the matter may be remitted to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for afresh decision of the appeal on merits. 7. On this short point both the Writ Petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.10.2009 and 07.08.2010 respectively are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh, on merits in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in the light of the observations made above.