JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Singh for the respondent nos. 2 and 4. Although none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition yet the matter has been heard and being decided finally. In case, respondent no. 4 feels aggrieved by the order, it is open for him to apply for recall of the same. 2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioners purchased some land by means of a registered sale-deed dated 20.04.1979 from the Dalsingar, the recorded tenure-holder. They applied for mutation but the mutation application was rejected. 3. On the start of the consolidation operations, the petitioners filed an objection under Section 9 whereon an order was passed on 27.07.1988 directing that the name of the petitioners be recorded over the land purchased by them. The petitioners thereafter are alleged to have discovered that there was an amaldaramad in favour of the respondents of an order dated 11.06.1985 regarding the same land. However, it is alleged that no record of the case wherein such order was passed, is available. 4. On discovery of this discrepancy, two separate reports by the Consolidation Officer were made to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 5. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation registered these reports as misc. case no. 57. Thereafter the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 20.01.1989 set aside the amaldaramad dated 11.06.1985 and directed that the record of the case be reconstructed and the same be decided a fresh. 6. Against this order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the contesting respondents preferred a revision. This revision was allowed on 20.03.2002 on the ground that a misc. proceeding was not the proper way of setting aside the revenue entry which should have been set aside only by means of regular proceedings. 7. In view of the observations made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 26.06.2002, petitioners preferred an appeal being appeal no. 17/39/85. 8. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 08.07.2013 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to reconstruct the record and to decide the case afresh. 9. In the meantime, the contesting respondents preferred appeal being appeal no. 17/39/85. 8. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 08.07.2013 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to reconstruct the record and to decide the case afresh. 9. In the meantime, the contesting respondents preferred appeal being appeal no. 16/40/66/225 against the order dated 27.07.1988 whereby the name of the petitioners had been ordered to be recorded over the land purchased by them. 10. The respondents preferred another appeal being appeal no. 18/434/38/264 which was against an order passed in proceedings under Rule 109 to implement the order dated 27.07.1988 in favour of the petitioners. 11. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the aforesaid two appeals filed by the respondents on the ground that by a separate order dated 08.07.2013, the matter had been remanded by him to the Consolidation Officer for reconstructing the record and for deciding the case afresh and, therefore, the two appeals of the respondents had been rendered infructuous. 12. Against the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 08.07.2013 respondents preferred a revision no. 53/27 of 2013. Another revision was filed by the respondents being revision no. 2/26 of 2013 whereby the two appeals of the respondents had been dismissed as infructuous. 13. The two revisions aforesaid are being disposed of by a separate orders. The decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chandauli dated 18.05.2015 passed in revision no. 53/22 of 2013 has been impugned in this writ petition no. 50234 of 2015. 14. Connected writ petition no. 50230 of 2015 is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision no. 2/26 of 2013. 15. Although there are two separate revisional orders yet, both the orders are orders of remand whereby the orders impugned in the revision have been set aside and the matter have been remanded to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to pass fresh orders in the light of directions contained therein. 16. Insofar as the writ petition no. 50234 of 2015 is concerned, the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been set aside with the direction that the appellate court may re-examine the matter in the light of the judgement passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Varanasi on 26.03.2002. 17. 16. Insofar as the writ petition no. 50234 of 2015 is concerned, the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been set aside with the direction that the appellate court may re-examine the matter in the light of the judgement passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Varanasi on 26.03.2002. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had recorded specific findings which have not been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the matter has been remanded cursorily. He submits that, in any case, the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was an order of remand and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed patent illegality in reversing it and again remanding it to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the appeal afresh. 18. He has further submitted that the appellate order could have been set aside only on the ground of same illegality therein. 19. Insofar as the connected writ petition is concerned, he submits that the matter therein is connected to the main dispute which arises in the instant writ petition and all issues should be remanded back to the Consolidation Officer so that a complete order is passed. 20. Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the orders impugned being orders of remand, call for no interference. Even if the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are accepted, the matter still has to be remanded back. The only question is as to the forum before whom the dispute is to be remanded. 21. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation who is the last court of fact and is competent to record findings both on facts and on law in view of the third explanation to Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, has, in my considered opinion, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and has unnecessarily remanded the matter back for afresh decision. Nothing prevented the Deputy Director of Consolidation from examined the matter and passing an appropriate order himself. Even otherwise, the Deputy Director of Consolidation being a court of fact can direct reconstruction of any record and is also competent to permit evidence to be adduced before him. 22. Nothing prevented the Deputy Director of Consolidation from examined the matter and passing an appropriate order himself. Even otherwise, the Deputy Director of Consolidation being a court of fact can direct reconstruction of any record and is also competent to permit evidence to be adduced before him. 22. In such view of the matter and in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appellate order passed in their favour has been set aside without pointing out any illegality therein and because fresh order has been directed to be passed after examining an earlier order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, I am of the considered opinion that the orders of remand are not liable to be sustained. The exercise for which the matter has been remanded back could very well have been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself and he has, therefore, unnecessarily remanded the matter. 23. Accordingly and in view of the above, I set aside the impugned revisional order and remand the matter back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all concerned. 24. It is further provided that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may permit the parties to adduce their evidence in case, they so desire. 25. In view of the above, the matter upon remand may be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the DDC. 26. Accordingly and subject to aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions are allowed and the orders impugned passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in these writ petitions dated 18.05.2015 are set aside and the matters are remanded back for a fresh decision. Petition allowed.