JUDGMENT : RAJIV JOSHI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R.P. Shashtri and Sri Dheerendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 14.5.2018 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision no. 67/1182, 70/1120, 68/1196 and 69/1281 respectively. 3. The facts as reflect from the record are that one Narayan was the recorded tenure holder, who died in 2003. After his death, his two sons namely, Pannalal and Munnalal and his widow Smt. Jeera Devi succeeded the property. Pannalal exucuted registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Sheela Devi, respondent no.2 with regard to his chak on 13.9.2002 and on the strength of the said sale deed, name of Smt. Sheela Devi, respondent no.2 was mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 13.11.2002. 4. Subsequently, the second sale deed was executed by Panna Lal in favour of the petitioners with regard to the second chak vide registered sale deed dated 19.1.2013 and on the strength of the said sale deed, the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 19.1.2013. Panna Lal again executed a sale deed with regard to remaining portion of the land in favour of his wife Smt. Usha Devi vide registered sale deed dated 28.1.2013 and on that strength, her name was mutated in the revenue record on 6.3.2013. The other heirs of respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed appeal against the order dated 22.2.2013, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 13.10.2014. The respondents no. 5 and 6 again filed the appeal challenging the order dated 6.3.2013, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 13.10.2014 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the parties.? 5. Subsequently, four revisions were filed by respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revisional authority consolidated all the revisions and vide order dated 14.5.2018 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the claim of the parties on the strength of the sale deed. 5. Subsequently, four revisions were filed by respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revisional authority consolidated all the revisions and vide order dated 14.5.2018 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the claim of the parties on the strength of the sale deed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded specific finding to the effect that the Pannal Lal executed three sale deeds in favour of petitioner, respondent no.2 and respondent no.4. The finding has to be recorded to the effect whether the Panna Lal has rightly executed the sale deeds or sale deeds were executed exceeding his shares and which sale deed is effective and valid one. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no necessity for remanding the case as the orders appear to be illegal. 7. I have considered the arguments of the parties and is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision and remanding all the matters before the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh after due opportunity to the parties concerned. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 8. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Since, the matter is old one, therefore, it is expected that the Consolidation Officer shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible.