JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard Mr. R.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C. Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.N. Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. A joint chak no. 466 was allotted to the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 as co-sharers/ co-tenure holders. In pursuance to an appellate order dated 26.04.2003 passed in Appeal No. 6580 of 1974 reference was prepared by the concerned authority for actual partition of the said chak between the co-sharers. After preparing the reference the Asst. Consolidation Officer forwarded the same to the Consolidation Officer who inturn forwarded it to Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) forwarded the reference to Deputy Director of Consolidation who is the authority competent to take decision in this matter as per Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1943. 3. In the meantime, as per the record, some application was filed by the petitioner herein alleging that the reference was not in conformity with the factual position regarding possession as existing on the spot relating to the chak in question. Based on this application, a report was requisitioned from the Additional Consolidation Officer who submitted the same on 09.09.2008 annexing therewith a map allegedly dated 19.09.2008 wherein it was mentioned that the reference was contrary to the agreement between the co-sharers. The reference so submitted before the Deputy Director of Consolidation subject to the modification suggested on 09.09.2008 was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25.10.2008. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the opposite party no. 2 filed an application for recall of the same, inter-alia on the ground that at no stage was he heard before the Deputy Director of Consolidation before passing of the said order and he had absolutely no knowledge of the subsequent report dated 09.09.2008 and the preparation of the map annexed therewith. 5. Based on this application for recall the impugned order dated 15.10.2010 has been passed whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not only recalled the order dated 25.10.2008 but has also remanded the matter back to the original stage of preparation of the reference by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 6. 5. Based on this application for recall the impugned order dated 15.10.2010 has been passed whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not only recalled the order dated 25.10.2008 but has also remanded the matter back to the original stage of preparation of the reference by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 6. The short contention of Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the order dated 25.10.2008 was to be recalled then the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have heard the matter on merits which he is empowered to do under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1943, but there was absolutely no justification on his part to remand the matter by the same order without considering the matter on merits and recording any finding supported by reasons for such action. 7. On the other hand Sri Jain, submits that he was not heard before passing of the order dated 25.10.2008 and was gravely prejudiced by the submission of subsequent report dated 09.09.2008 along with the map dated 19.09.2008, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly recalled the order and remanded the matter back. He submits that the impugned order does not require interference by this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 15.10.2010 in so far as it recalls the order dated 25.10.2008 does not suffer from any error. However, I find that once he recalled the order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have consider the matter under Section 48(3) of the Act after giving opportunity of hearing to the rival parties including the opportunity to file objection to the reference submitted before him as also report of Additional Consolidation Officer dated 09.09.2008 and thereafter he should have taken a decision in the matter but he was not justified in passing a composite order recalling the impugned order dated 25.10.2008 and also remanding the matter to the original level without giving any reason/ finding for the same. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample power under Section 48(3) of the Act to consider the matter on the reference made to him and it was not necessary to remand the matter, that too mechanically, unless there are valid reasons for doing so. 10. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample power under Section 48(3) of the Act to consider the matter on the reference made to him and it was not necessary to remand the matter, that too mechanically, unless there are valid reasons for doing so. 10. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 to the extent it recalls the earlier order dated 25.10.2008 is sustained but the said order in so far as it remands the proceeding back to original level cannot be sustained and this part of the order is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the light of observation made herein above. It shall be open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand the matter, but only for cogent reasons on account of which he himself is unable to resolve the matter. 11. Subject to the above, the writ petition is partly allowed.