JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel petitioner, learned state counsel as well as Sri Alok Misrha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties and perused the record. 2. As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature, so with the consent of parties' counsel who are present today, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. 3. It is not in dispute in the present case that the land in dispute which is recorded as Plot No. 1380 and 1658 of Khata No. 124 in village Srauna Hamlet of Sahjanwa, Pargana Tappa Birwa Tahsil and District Gonda initially the litigation has come up before the Court in Writ Petition No. 1541 of 1971 (Raksha Ram Vs.; Prahlad and others), allowed by order dated 13.09.1973, operative portion on reproduction reads as under: - "The petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.7.1971 is quashed. He is directed to restore the revision petition to its original number and to decide it afresh in accordance with the law and the observations made herein. The petitioner is entitled to the costs." 4. In pursuance to the said fact, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has passed an order dated 06.11.1986, challenged by the contesting respondents by filing an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 19.12.2013, thereafter a revision No. 916/576 has been filed which was allowed by an order dated 10.10.2014 and the Dy. Director of Consolidation has set aside the order dated 19.12.2012 and 06.11.1986 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the order 10.10.2014 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation thereby remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer is not in accordance with the provisions as provided under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the case of Ram Nath (dead) through legal LRs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and another, 2005 (98) RD 570 , this Court has held that while exercising the power of revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C. & H. Act, Deputy Director of Consolidation possesses the powers to give his own findings by assigning reasons contrary to the findings given by the court below. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and another, 2005 (98) RD 570 , this Court has held that while exercising the power of revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C. & H. Act, Deputy Director of Consolidation possesses the powers to give his own findings by assigning reasons contrary to the findings given by the court below. 6. Thus, keeping in view the abovesaid fact, the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and thereby giving ample opportunity of hearing to them in accordance with law as well as keeping in view the earlier passed by this Court.