JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Learned counsel agree that the respondent no.3 is the person who had filed the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The order of remand has been challenged by the petitioner alone. Both contesting parties are represented and that the remaining respondents namely respondent no. 4 to 15 are, proforma respondents. 3. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is being decided finally without issuing any notices to the other respondents, who are admittedly proforma parties. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 18.11.2016, passed in Revision No.392/909 (Sunita vs. Chandrama and others). 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were two orders, allegedly passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The dispute was that as to which of the two orders was the correct order and which of them was a forgery. This aspect could have been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself after examining the records. The matter is an extremely old one and the order of remand remand of shall unnecessarily prolong the litigation. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in view of the proviso to Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, is a Court of fact and is competent to appreciate the evidence and to record his own findings contrary to this was recorded by the Subordinate Courts.The order of remand is, therefore, an exercise in futility. 6. Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there were two orders allegedly passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The matter has been remanded back for Settlement Officer Consolidation himself to decide as to which of the orders was the genuine one. Once fraud is practised upon a Court, it is that Court which has inherent power to set aside the fraudulent orders. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The orders which have been produced and purport to have been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, are of the same date. By one of them, the appeal of the petitioner was allowed while by another order, the appeal has been dismissed. 9. 8. The orders which have been produced and purport to have been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, are of the same date. By one of them, the appeal of the petitioner was allowed while by another order, the appeal has been dismissed. 9. These orders are of 12.10.1973. After more than 40 years, the same Officer would not be available to determine as to which of the order is the actual order passed in the appeal. Such determination will necessarily have to be made on the basis of the record alone. 10. Under the circumstances, therefore, in my considered opinion, this exercise could have been undertaken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself and a remand for this purpose is not going to serve any useful purpose, except prolonging the litigation. 11. Under the circumstances, therefore, I set aside the order of remand dated 18.11.2016 and direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia to decide the issue himself after examining the relevant records. 12. It is further provided that this exercise must be completed expeditiously and positively within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Needless to say, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall proceed with the matter without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. He may also hear the matter on a day to day basis so as to pass a final order within the time specified. 13. Subject to the above observations this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18.11.2016 shall be set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia for passing a fresh order.