JUDGMENT : 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.2.2015 and 27.7.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director Consolidation respectively. 4. It reflects from the record that the land was recorded in the name of Smt. Mahadai, who executed the registered Will in favour of petitioner on 19.2.2001. On the basis of said Will deed, name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 11.12.2001. Subsequently, an application was filed from the side of the respondent no.1 to 3 for recalling the said order. Ultimately, the application was dismissed in default. In the meantime, the villager was notified under consolidation operation and therefore, the petitioner filed the objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 for the division of share. The said application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.3.2008, whereby the share was determined between the petitioner and the other co-sharers. Against that order, appeal was filed, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.2.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter afresh after giving opportunity to all the co-sharers. The order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was affirmed in revision filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2018. The order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director Consolidation are impugned in the writ petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no question of remand as the Consolidation Officer has passed the order on merits determining shares of the parties. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is an ex parte order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents refuted the argument as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner by saying that the order impugned passed by the Consolidation Officer is an ex parte order and has been passed in summary manner without taking into the evidence even without hearing all the co-sharers and therefore, the said order cannot be sustained. 7. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. The specific finding has been recorded by both the appellate as well as revisional authority to the effect that the order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the Consolidation Officer is an ex parte order and has been passed without issuing any notice to the co-sharers. Finding has also recorded to the effect that no opportunity of hearing was given to the co-sharers and without framing any issues, the order was passed. Under these circumstances, the matter has rightly been remitted to Consolidation Officer for reconsider the case after framing the issues and giving proper opportunity to the co-sharers. 9. The order impugned is merely a remand order and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is open to all the parties to lead evidence and contest the matter. 10. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned herein. 11. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.