Anil Kumar, J.— Matter is taken in revised list. 2. None appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. 4. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the controversy relates to plot no. 92 situated in village Chhapartala, Pargana Aurangabad District Lakhimpur Kheri ( hereinafter referred to as ' land in question') recorded in the name of one Sri Hulla on the revenue record, who has three sons, namely, Kundan, Rudra and Bhai Lal . After the death of Kundan, his share in the property in question has been claimed by one Gulaboo (now deceased) on the ground that she is the only surviving daughter of deceased Kundan so as per Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the share of Kundan in the land in question shall by way of succession be inherited by her. Further another set of objection has been filed claiming the share of deceased Kundan by the contesting respondents on the ground that they are the sons of Bhai Lal, who is real brothers of Kundan. Learned Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 23.9.2002 has rejected the claim of contesting respondents and allowed the clalim of Smt. Gulaboo. Aggrieved by the said facts, appeal has been filed, dismissed by order dated 8.9.2003. 5. Accordingly, a revision has been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri, also dismissed by order dated 30.10.2004. Thereafter, the contesting respondents for redressal of their grievances approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.727 ( Consolidation) of 2005( Ram Kishore and others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Lakhimpur Kheri and others) in which Smt. Gulaboo was impleded as respondent no.4, allowed by order dated 21.10.2005 with the following directions:- " My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the sale-deed dated 9.9.1988 said to have been executed by Bhai Lal S/o Hulla. This documents shows that even in the year 1988 Bhai Lal was alive and, therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that Bhai Lal died in the year 1975 does not appear to be, prima facie, correct . This documents shows that even in the year 1988 Bhai Lal was alive and, therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that Bhai Lal died in the year 1975 does not appear to be, prima facie, correct . Since the matter of execution of sale-deed by Bhai Lal in the year 1988 has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in detail, it would be proper that the matter be remanded back for afresh decision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.10.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 943 of 2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned for decision afresh after haring the parties and their learned counsel and to consider as to whether Bhai Lal had executed the sale-deed dated 9.9.1988, a copy of which has been brought on record and if that sale-deed is there it should be presumed that Bhai Lal was alive even on 9.9.1988 and, therefore, the property will be devolved not in a manner as directed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and according to the Schedule of the Zamindari Abolition Act." 6. In view of the said developments, matter came up for consideration before opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri, who vide order dated 15.7.2006 ( Annexure no.1) allowed the revision and setting aside the orders dated 23.9.2002 and 8.9.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri and Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri respectively . 7. From the perusal of the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition, the findings which is given by opposite party n.1 while allowing the revision is to the effect that it is not in dispute between the parties that Sri Kundan has died in the year 1977 and a sale-deed dated 9.9.1988 executed by Sri Bhai Lal alias Bhailla which is on record, so it is presumed that Sri Bhai lal was alive after the death of Sri Kundan as such in view of the order passed by this Court as per provisions as provided under Section 171 of the Act, the land in question will inherited by way of succession to the contesting respondents. 8. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and taking into consideration the provisions as provided under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act, the first question which is to be arisen whether the impugned findings given by opposite party no.1 in setting aside the judgments passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation is correct or not? It will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act and the amendments made thereunder. 9. Section 48 of the Act was amended by amendment Act 8 of 1963. Before its amendment Section 48 read as under: "48. The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case if the officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the case, as it thinks fit." 10. U.P. Act No.8 of 1963 the Section 48 was again amended and after amendment the same reads as under:- "It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It ha to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by its is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding." 11. Again by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982 (w.e.f.10.11.1980), the following explanation has been inserted after sub-section 3 of Section 48 of the Act :- "Explanation - [1] For the purpose of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation." 12. Thereafter by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 (w.e.f. 10.11.1980), the following explanation has been inserted after sub-section 3 of Section 48 of the Act :- "Explanation - [3] The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence." 13. In the case of Sheo Nand Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & Ors. 1991 RD (SC) 213, Honble the Supreme Court has dealt with Section 48 (1) as amended in the year 1963 held as under:- "The Section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo-motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the Revenue Records may be prepared accordingly." 14. Again in the case of Ram Dular Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 198, it has been held as under:- "It is clearly that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by its is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding." 15. In the case of Shesh Mani and Ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, District Basti, U.P. and Ors. 2000 (18) LCD 602 Supreme Court, the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 (after 1963 amendment) came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Apex Court, wherein it has been held as under:- "It is difficult to accept the contempt of the appellants. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer had ignored the sales certificate in favour of Ram Khelawan, predecessor of the respondents. To base a claim on adverse possession, it is not enough to allege that one is in possession of the land. The ingredients of adverse possession were missing as these were not alleged nor taken into consideration. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer proceeded on a wrong premise and against the settled principles of law. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, therefore, was well justified in exercising his power of revision and coming to a different conclusion. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court and so also the review petition of the appellants." 16. In the case of Ram Nath (dead) through legal LRs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and another, 2005 (98) RD 570 , this Court has held that while exercising the power of revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C. & H. Act, Deputy Director of Consolidation possesses the powers to give his own findings by assigning reasons contrary to the findings given by the court below. 17. Keeping in view the above said facts and the judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 727 ( Consolidation ) of 2005 ( Ram Kishore and others Vs. 17. Keeping in view the above said facts and the judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 727 ( Consolidation ) of 2005 ( Ram Kishore and others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Lakhimpur Kheri and others), the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri under legal obligation to consider and decide whether Sri Bhai Lal has executed a sale-deed on 9.9.1988 which is on record. However, in the present case while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 5.7.2006, opposite party no.1 had not done the said exercise and in a very cursory manner had passed the impugned order only taken into consideration that the sale-deed has been executed by Sri Bhai Lal so after the death of Kundan in the year 1977 the share of his land in question as per the provisions as provided under Section 171 of the Act will inherited by way of succession to the contesting respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.7.2006 passed by opposite party no.1 is contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act as well as the directions given by this Court by order dated 21.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 727 ( Consolidation ) of 2005 (Ram Kishore and others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Lakhimpur Kheri and others). 18. Further during the pendency of present writ petition Smt. Gulaboo / petitioner died and she is substituted by her legal heirs, namely, Hira lal Singh and Krishan Pal . 19. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 5.7.2006 ( Annexure no.1) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside and the matter is remanded to the said authority to decide afresh in accordance with law in view of the observations made herein above and as given by this Court by its judgment dated 21.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 727 (Consolidation ) of 2005 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 20. For a period of four months or till the decisions is taken by opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri whichever is earlier, parties are directed to maintain status quo. _____________