JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri M.A. Qadir Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad, for the petitioners in Writ B No.41870 of 2016 and Sri B.S. Pandey for the petitioner in Writ B No.42067 of 2016. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 5.12.2012 allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.3.2009 and remanding the case to Consolidation Officer for deciding objections of the parties afresh after giving opportunity of evidence to them on merit and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.8.2016 allowing the revision and setting aside the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 5.12.2012 and remanding the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh on merit on the basis of existing evidence on record in the title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The dispute between the parties was in respect of inheritance of Mahmood Alam. In the basic consolidation year khata no.26, which was jointly recorded in the names of Mahmood Alam and Maqsood Alam sons of Sanaullah, and Mubarak Hussain, Tabaraq Husain and Ibarat Husain, sons of Haitullah. Smt. Swaleha alias Kishora filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming herself to be daughter of Mahmood Alam and his heir. Mubarak Husain and others contested the matter and denied that Smt. Swaleha alias Kishora was daughter of Mahmood Alam. They had stated that Shakina was the daughter of Mahmood Alam and in previous consolidation Shakina entered into a compromise with recorded tenure holders. The petitioner did not raise any objection in previous consolidation, therefore, her right, if any, is barred under Section 49 of the Act. 4. It is alleged that issue in the case on the basis of pleadings of the parties was framed on 16.6.2007 and 7.7.2007 was the date fixed for evidence of Swaleha alias Kishora. On that day the case was adjourned for 4.8.2007 and then again it was adjourned for 10.8.2007, 22.8.2007 and 28.8.2007. Maqsood Alam and others moved an application for deciding the issue relating to bar of the objection under Section 49 of the Act as a preliminary issue. On that day the case was adjourned for 4.8.2007 and then again it was adjourned for 10.8.2007, 22.8.2007 and 28.8.2007. Maqsood Alam and others moved an application for deciding the issue relating to bar of the objection under Section 49 of the Act as a preliminary issue. Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.8.2007 granted time to parties to file their evidence in respect of preliminary issue of bar of objection under Section 49 of the Act and fixed 31.8.2007 in the matter. On 31.8.2007 Maqsood and others filed their documentary evidence. On 31.8.2007 Smt. Swaleha alias Kishora filed an application raising the issue relating to preferential heir and remote heir on which Maqsood and others were allowed time for filing objection and the case was adjourned. Ultimately, Consolidation Officer heard the issue relating to bar of objection under Section 49 of the Act but while deciding this issue he allowed the objection Smt. Swaleha alias Kishora by order dated 20.3.2009 and directed for recording her name over 1/3rd share in the land in dispute. 5. Maqsood Alam and others filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 5.12.2012 found that the objection of Swaleha alias Kishora was not barred under Section 49 of the Act inasmuch as during previous consolidation she was minor. However, the parties were not allowed to lead fresh evidence for trial of the case on merit. Therefore, while upholding the order of Consolidation Officer on the issue of Section 49 of the Act, he remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to allow the parties to lead their evidence and decide the case on merit. Smt. Swaleha alias Kishora filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 6.8.2016 allowed the revision and set aside the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 5.12.2012. He found that the parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence as such no fresh opportunity to lead fresh evidence is required to be given. He remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merit on the basis of existing evidence on record. Hence, both these writ petitions have been filed. 6. He found that the parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence as such no fresh opportunity to lead fresh evidence is required to be given. He remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merit on the basis of existing evidence on record. Hence, both these writ petitions have been filed. 6. The arguments of the counsel for Swaleha alias Kishora was that entire evidence was on record and Deputy Director of Consolidation would have decided the revision on merit instead of remanding the case. Under Section 48 of the Act Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent to deal with entire evidence and record his own independent finding on issues relating to law and fact. Remand would send back the parties to the stage of Consolidation Officer unnecessarily although the case could have been decided on merit by him. He further submits that prior to the objection under Section 9 of the Act Smt. Swaleha alias Kishora filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 in which evidence of the parties were adduced. All the evidence were on the record before Consolidation Officer. Thus, no further evidence was required to be led by the parties and evidence of the case under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 can be read and relied upon by the consolidation authorities. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ganga Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 2011 All.C.J. 672 in which it has been held that it is well settled that pleadings and evidence led in earlier proceeding, which may have either abated or may have not attained finality for whatsoever reason would be binding on the parties with regard to their admission and denial in subsequent collateral proceedings. 7. The counsel for Mubaraq Husain and others, however, submitted that evidence was allowed to be led by the parties only on the issue of bar of objection under Section 49 of the Act. Papers of previous consolidation were filed by Mubaraq Husain and others only in respect of that issue. No other evidence was led by the parties. None of the parties have led their oral evidence in the matter. In such circumstances Settlement Officer, Consolidation has rightly remanded the case to Consolidation Officer with the direction to allow the parties to lead their evidence and decide the matter afresh. No other evidence was led by the parties. None of the parties have led their oral evidence in the matter. In such circumstances Settlement Officer, Consolidation has rightly remanded the case to Consolidation Officer with the direction to allow the parties to lead their evidence and decide the matter afresh. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally interfered in the matter. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for petitioners in both the writ petitions and examined the record. 9. A copy of the order sheet has been filed along with supplementary affidavit in writ petition of Smt. Swaleha alias Kishora. A perusal of the order sheet shows that issues were framed on 16.6.2007 and date for evidence of Swaleha alias Kishora was fixed as 7.7.2007 but in the meantime, the case was adjourned and ultimately it was taken up on 29.8.2007. On that day Maqsood Alam and others filed their documentary evidence and also filed an application that issue relating to bar of objection under Section 49 of the Act may be decided as a preliminary issue. Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.8.2007 directed the parties to lead their evidence on the issue relating to bar of objection under Section 49 of the Act. Thereafter ,documentary evidence were filed by the parties. None of the parties have led oral evidence. Thus, there was no complete trial before Consolidation Officer. It is only issue relating to bar of objection under Section 49 of the Act which has been tried. So far as other issues between the parties are concerned, no evidence has been led by either of them in respect of them. 10. So far as the argument that evidence led in the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 were filed and were on record is concerned, this documentary evidence can be examined but so far as oral evidence is concerned, if the witnesses were alive then their statements cannot be led in evidence and they are required to be examined afresh before Consolidation Officer. So far as the case law relied upon in Ganga Prasad (supra) is concerned, in this case it has been held that admission of the parties in previous proceeding can be relied upon in a subsequent proceeding. So far as the case law relied upon in Ganga Prasad (supra) is concerned, in this case it has been held that admission of the parties in previous proceeding can be relied upon in a subsequent proceeding. In the present case there is no question of admission but the question is as to whether fresh trial is required or not during consolidation. The documentary evidence filed in the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 can be filed by the parties before Consolidation Officer. So far as oral evidence is concerned, if the witnesses were alive then they are to be examined afresh before Consolidation Officer. Settlement Officer, Consolidation has rightly held that there was no trial on all the issues. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision and directed Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh on the basis of existing evidence on record. 11. In the result the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.8.2016 is set aside. Consolidation Officer shall proceed with the trial of the case on other issues between the parties as directed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 5.12.2012, expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.