JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. All these four writ petitions have been filed challenging the same order and so they have been heard together and are being decided by the common order. Heard Sri B. Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Tripathi and Smt. Kamla Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the share of the parties arises out of an objection under section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by the petitioner claiming his rights on the basis of the registered sale deeds said to have been executed by Ram Jatan Singh. The objection is said to have been decided on the basis of the compromise. Against the compromise order the contesting respondents filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation after hearing the parties dismissed the Appeal. The consequential revision filed by the contesting respondent has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.8.2014 and the matter has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh after affording the parties opportunity to adduce evidence. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the order of remand has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. He further submits that in view of Explanation 3 to section 48 of the Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent to re-appreciate the evidence available on the record and record his own findings both on the facts and on law, contrary to those that have been remanded by the subordinate consolidation authorities. In such view of the matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have decide the revision himself and has unnecessarily remanded the matter, which was only to prolong the litigation, and will lead to harassment of the parties. 4. Sri S.N. Tripathi on the contrary has tried to support the remand order and submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no option but to remand back the matter as an objection under section 9 of the Act filed by the contesting respondents is pending consideration. In this objection the vendor of the petitioner is also a party. 5. Sri S.N. Tripathi on the contrary has tried to support the remand order and submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no option but to remand back the matter as an objection under section 9 of the Act filed by the contesting respondents is pending consideration. In this objection the vendor of the petitioner is also a party. 5. By that as it may a perusal of the order impugned does not disclose any cogent reason as to why the matter has been remanded back. I am not satisfied with the arguments raised by Sri S.N. Tripathi in support of the order of remand. The reasons for passing remand order has to be supplied by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order itself but this has not been done and for this reason alone the order cannot be sustained. 6. Moreover, as already noticed here in above the Deputy Director of Consolidation is the last Court of fact and is competent to record his own findings both on fact or on law upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record. 7. Since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to exercise this jurisdiction vested in him without assigning any cogent reason for not doing so, the order impugned deserves to be and is hereby set aside, the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order after hearing all concerned in accordance with law and after appreciation of the entire evidence available on record. 8. It is further provided that this exercise may be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Subject to the directions aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for a decision afresh in accordance with law.