Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Rama Nand Pandey for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Gupta and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 3.11.2010 allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision on merit after considering the evidence on record and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.10.2013 by which the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed as not maintainable being a revision against an interlocutory order. 3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Deena Nath and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2010(7) ADJ 533 has held that remand order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is not an interlocutory order as defined in Explanation (2) of Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Accordingly, the revision is maintainable against the remand order. He submits that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court. He further submits that entire evidence of the parties were on the record and the Consolidation Officer has recorded his finding on its basis. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation while deciding the appeal under Section 11 of the Act as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision under Section 48 of the Act were fully competent to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record and to record its own findings of fact and in the circumstances remanding the case amounts to delay in the proceeding for unlimited period and will cause harassment to the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of his statutory duty was required to decide the case on merit. 4. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, counsel for the respondents submits that the revision is not maintainable. In any case the remand order was not causing any injustice to any of the parties as such no interference is required by this Court. He further submits that before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioners themselves were not present. 4. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, counsel for the respondents submits that the revision is not maintainable. In any case the remand order was not causing any injustice to any of the parties as such no interference is required by this Court. He further submits that before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioners themselves were not present. In case they feel any grievance against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation they have the remedy of filing a recall application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation itself and the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. 6. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that he has dismissed the revision holding that the revision being against the order of remand as such it was against an interlocutory order and was not maintainable. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dina Nath(supra) has held that the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is a final order in appeal and cannot be treated as an interlocutory order within Explanation (2) of Section 48(1) of the Act as such the revision was maintainable. Thus the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. 7. So far as the other arguments that as the all the evidence is on record, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself was competent to decide the revision on merit and as under Section 48 read with Explanation (3) of the Act Deputy Director of Consolidation was fully competent to decide and re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record to decide all the issues relating to fact also. In such circumstances the remanding the case was not called for. The entire record was before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He should have decided the case on merit. 8. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.10.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall decide the revision on merit in accordance with law. He should have decided the case on merit. 8. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.10.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall decide the revision on merit in accordance with law. Since the matter is very old, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 9. At the last counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents may be restrained from selling the land in dispute. Since writ petition has been finally decided by this order it will not be proper for this Court to grant an interim order. However, if the petitioners feel aggrieved they may file an application for grant of interim order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which shall be considered by him in accordance with law. ______________