JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. This petition seeks to challenge an order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Barabanki whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent nos.3 to 5 against the order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Barabanki and 16.05.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer, was allowed. The petitioner also challenges the judgment and order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki whereby the revision petition preferred by him against the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been rejected. 3. The facts of this case, which can be culled out from the pleadings available on record, are that the land in question was recorded in the basic year in the name of one Ramphal. There were three sets of claimants to the land in question, namely, Kamla Prasad (petitioner), Virendra Singh & others (respondent nos.3 to 5) and one Smt. Shanti Devi. The claim put forth before the Consolidation Officer in respect of the land in question by Smt. Shanti Devi was that she was sister of the original tenure holder Ramphal and accordingly her name was recorded under section 33-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act in form P.A.-11 before the consolidation operations were started in the village concerned. The petitioner put forth his claim on the basis of a registered will said to be executed on 26.10.1985. The claim as canvassed by the respondent nos.3 to 5 before the Consolidation Officer was also based on another will-deed dated 05.09.1985. 4. The Consolidation Officer accordingly proceeded to consider the claim of the respective parties, however, it appears that Smt. Shanti Devi and Virendra Singh and others did not appear and accordingly an order was passed on 16.05.2000 for carrying on the proceedings ex-parte by the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer thereafter passed his final judgment and order dated 16.12.2003 whereby in absence of the claim of the rest of two claimants, Smt. Shanti Devi and Virendra Singh and others, the claim put forth by the petitioner was accepted and accordingly on the basis of will-deed said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer passed an order for recording his name as tenure holder of the land in question. 5. 5. Against the aforesaid two orders dated 16.12.2003 and 16.05.2000, the respondent nos.3 to 5 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation after considering the entire material available on record has stated in his order that it would be appropriate if the case put forth by Virendra Singh and others may also be considered by the Consolidation Officer on merits and accordingly he decided the appeal by means of judgment and order dated 15.09.2015 by setting aside the orders dated 16.12.2003 and 16.05.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter to the court of Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter on merit after permitting the parties to the proceedings to adduce their evidence. Thus, the order under challenge herein passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Barabanki is an order of remand. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition against the said order dated 15.09.2015 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by means of the impugned order in this writ petition dated 18.08.2018 has dismissed the revision petition and has accordingly directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter on merits expeditiously. 6. It is true that Virendra Singh and others, who had filed their objections on the basis of some will-deed before the Consolidation Officer, subsequently could not participate in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. However, it is equally true that the case put forth by them could not be considered by the Consolidation Officer. The claim of the petitioner is based on a will-deed. Case of the respondent nos.3 to 5 is also based on a will-deed. There is also a dispute which is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation in relation to factum of the date of death of the original recorded tenure holder late Ramphal. Accordingly, for giving a finding in respect of date of death of the original tenure holder as also got genuineness of will deeds being relied upon by both, by the petitioner as also by the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5, the matter has been remanded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the Court of Consolidation Officer. The parties before the Consolidation Officer will have ample opportunity to lead their respective evidence and contest the matter on merits. 7. The parties before the Consolidation Officer will have ample opportunity to lead their respective evidence and contest the matter on merits. 7. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki as also by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Barabanki. The writ petition is thus dismissed. 8. However, it is categorically directed that the Consolidation Officer shall decide the matter after giving opportunity of adducing evidence to the parties concerned, expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. It is further directed that no adjournment shall be sought by the parties contesting the case before the Consolidation Officer and adjournment if prayed for would be permissible to be granted by the Consolidation Officer only in exceptional circumstances. The Consolidation Officer shall thus decide the matter on merits within the time stipulated hereinabove. 10. This order shall be communicated to the Consolidation Officer by the learned Standing Counsel forthwith. 11. There will be no order as to cost.