JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, for respondent-3. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 23.08.2004 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 08.11.2013, passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to the land recorded in various khatas of village Chhamaun, pargana Chathrawal, district Muzaffar Nagar. In basic consolidation year khata 37 was recorded in the names of Mamraj son of Heera, Ram Charan son of Chamela, Smt. Baleri widow of Ram Singh, khata 39 was recorded in the names of Mamraj son of Heera, Ram Charan son of Chamela, khata 40 was recorded in the names of Mamraj son of Heera, Ram Charan son of Chamela, Smt. Baleri widow of Ram Singh, Gyan Singh son of Bharat Singh, Rajbir, Raghubir and Sukhbir sons of Rishal, khata 109 was recorded in the name of Mamraj, khata 110 was recorded in the names of Mamraj son of Heera, Ram Charan son of Chamela and khata 119 was recorded in the names of Rajbir, Raghubir and Sukhbir sons of Rishal. Mamraj filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, on 14.06.1974 for deleting the name of Smt. Baleri. It has been stated that after death of Ram Singh, Smt. Baleri remarried to Karam Singh of village Badgaon, district Karnal. Mamraj filed another objection on 28.12.1974, stating therein that Smt. Baleri filed a suit under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, which was dismissed by order dated 01.04.1966, holding that Smt. Baleri remarried after death of Ram Singh. That decree has become final and objection of Smt. Baleri was barred by res-judicata. Smt. Baleri filed an objection, on 10.06.1974 under Section 9 of the Act, claiming her 1/4 share in the land in dispute. Ishwarwati (respondent-3) filed an objection on 06.03.1975, claiming herself as the daughter and an heir of Ram Singh. 4. All the objections were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer, Muzaffar Nagar, who by order dated 10.01.1977, held that after death of Ram Singh, Smt. Baleri remarried to Karam Singh as such she was divested. Her suit for partition under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 has already been dismissed. 4. All the objections were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer, Muzaffar Nagar, who by order dated 10.01.1977, held that after death of Ram Singh, Smt. Baleri remarried to Karam Singh as such she was divested. Her suit for partition under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 has already been dismissed. Smt. Ishwarwati could not prove that she was daughter of Ram Singh. On these findings, objections of Smt. Baleri and Smt. Ishwarwati were dismissed. 5. Smt. Baleri filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 959), Gyan Singh filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 967) and Ram Bal filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 968) from the aforesaid order of Consolidation Officer. However Smt. Ishwarwati did not file any appeal. The appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Muzaffar Nagar, who by order dated 15.02.1980, dismissed the appeals. Sukhbir filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 12), Smt. Baleri filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 13) and Smt. Ishwarwati filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 14) from the aforesaid order. The revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 07.06.1984, allowed the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and framed two issues and remanded the matter to Settlement Officer Consolidation for giving opportunity to the parties for additional evidence and decision afresh. 6. After remand, Settlement Officer Consolidation remitted the matter to Consolidation Officer for recording evidence of the parties. The Consolidation Officer recorded evidence of the parties and returned the evidence to Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 23.08.2004 found that Smt. Ishwarwati was daughter of Ram Singh and being unmarried at the time of remarriage of Smt. Baleri, inherited the properties of Ram Singh. On these findings, he gave 1/4 share in khata 40 and 1/2 share in khata 37 to Smt. Ishwarwati. Sher Singh filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 534), Ombir and others filed three revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 1248, 1249 and 1523) from the aforesaid order. All the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 08.11.2013 dismissed the revisions. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties were given full opportunity of hearing before the Consolidation Officer and adduced their evidence. 1248, 1249 and 1523) from the aforesaid order. All the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 08.11.2013 dismissed the revisions. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties were given full opportunity of hearing before the Consolidation Officer and adduced their evidence. Smt. Ishwarwati did not file any appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer. She directly filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation illegally remanded the matter for filling up the lacuna in evidence. Smt. Baleri in her plaint of the suit under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 did not say that any daughter was born to her from the bed lock of Ram Singh. In fact Smt. Ishwarwati was the daughter of Karam Singh, to whom Smt. Baleri remarried. Respondents-1 and 2 have illegally relied upon the birth certificate although it was admitted that in the village, there were three Ram Singh. The name of Smt. Baleri was mutated on the basis of PA 11, on which Patwari has noted that Ram Singh had not left behind him any son of daughter. This was a relevant evidence and has been illegally ignored by respondents-1 and 2. From the conduct of Smt. Ishwarwati that earlier she did not contest the matter, it is proved that she had no interest and in fact Smt. Baleri and Karam Singh were contested on her behalf. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. After remand Smt. Ishwarwati examined Smt. Ishwarwati, Udayraj, Rajbal, Bharat Singh, Gokul and Moman and filed certified copy of the birth register. Smt. Baleri examined herself, Asha, Mahabir and Prakash. Respondents-1 and 2 found that Smt. Baleri in her statement has stated that Smt. Ishwarwati was born to her from the bed lock of Ram Singh. Udayraj was the maternal uncle of Smt. Ishwarwati, who also proved that Smt. Ishwarwati was daughter of Ram Singh. Thus the birth Register was fully corroborated with the oral evidence. Respondents-1 and 2 after relying upon the birth Register and statement of Smt. Baleri and Udayraj held that Smt. Ishwarwati was daughter of Ram Singh and at the time of remarriage of Smt. Baleri, she being unmarried daughter, inherited the properties of Ram Singh. Thus the birth Register was fully corroborated with the oral evidence. Respondents-1 and 2 after relying upon the birth Register and statement of Smt. Baleri and Udayraj held that Smt. Ishwarwati was daughter of Ram Singh and at the time of remarriage of Smt. Baleri, she being unmarried daughter, inherited the properties of Ram Singh. Findings of fact recorded in this respect is based upon material evidence on record and not liable to be interfered by this Court. 9. So far as arguments that Smt. Ishwarwati did not file any appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.01.1977 is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in Faujdar Vs. DDC and other, 2006 (100) RD 462 held that any person aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer can file a revision directly before Deputy Director of Consolidation although he had not filed any appeal. Smt. Ishwarwati filed Revision No. 14, which was maintainable. 10. So far as arguments that remand order was illegal. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that in respect of Smt. Ishwarwati proper inquiry was required to be held as such by order dated 07.06.1984 remanded the matter after framing necessary issues for taking fresh evidence. The order was not challenged at that time and the petitioner participated in the proceedings. Now when the matter was decided against them, they are now challenging the remand order. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chaturghun Vs. Dhanpati Rai, 2008 (1) AWC 213 and Hardeshwar Nath Vs. Nand Lal, 2009 (107) RD 805, in which it has been held that remanding the case, in order to fill up the lacuna in evidence was illegal. Prem Masih Vs. S. K. Solomon, 2013 (120) RD 387 , in which it has been held that remand amount to luxurious waste of time. Order of remand not challenged by the defendant, even then in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution, it can be set aside. The cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, related to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The consolidation is the preparation of final settlement. In case, Deputy Director remanded the matter for further inquiry and evidence then it cannot be said that the order was illegal. 11. The cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, related to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The consolidation is the preparation of final settlement. In case, Deputy Director remanded the matter for further inquiry and evidence then it cannot be said that the order was illegal. 11. So far as mutation order, filed as annexure-14 to the writ petition, in which, the endorsement made relating to the fact that Ram Singh (the deceased) had left behind him no son or daughter is concerned, this endorsement is totally in different hand-writing. Under the law, no such endorsement is required to be made. The endorsement being in different hand-writing, no reliance can be placed on it. 11. The counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Y. B. Patil Vs. Y. L. Patil, (1976) 4 SCC 66 , in which it has been held that doctrine of res-judicata apply at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Supreme Court in K. T. Suresh Kumar Vs. P. Kunhappa Nair, (1999) 2 SCC 711 and C. V. Rajendra Vs. N. M. Muhammed Kunhi, AIR 2003 SC 649 held that if remand order was not challenged at that time and in pursuance of the remand order fresh order has been passed then remand order cannot be challenged at the subsequent stage and principle of res-judicata would apply. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.