JUDGMENT Rajnish Kumar, J. Heard, Shri R.J.Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich in Case No.0060 of 2019, under Section 48 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the U.P.C.H.Act) to the extent the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to opposite parties to maintain the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was allowed but the appeal was allowed and revision was rejected on the ground that the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act has been issued, whereas the same was filed prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act. The petitioner had approached this court by means of writ Petition Consolidation No.494 of 2015; Mukadam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich/Srawasti and others. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back on the ground that since the objection was filed prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act, therefore the Consolidation Officer would be fully competent to decide the same in accordance with law, whereas after remand the Settlement Officer Consolidation had allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.2 on the same ground by means of the order dated 07.04.2017. On being challenged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the petitioner the revision was allowed by means of order dated 26.05.2018 and the matter was remanded back to decide in terms of the directions issued by this court in Writ Petition Consolidation No.494 of 2015. Thereafter the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal again on the same grounds of issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act and quashed the order dated 14.02.2014 by means of order dated 20.07.2019. Therefore the petitioner had approached to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of Revision No.0060 of 2019. Thereafter the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal again on the same grounds of issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act and quashed the order dated 14.02.2014 by means of order dated 20.07.2019. Therefore the petitioner had approached to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of Revision No.0060 of 2019. Though the Revision has been allowed, but the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation have been set aside and the matter has been remanded to decide a fresh, whereas the Consolidation Officer had rightly decided the matter by means of the order dated 14.02.2014. Though learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the objection filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of till date on merit and it has always been decided on technical ground of issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act. 4. On the basis of above, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside to the extent it quashes the order dated 14.02.2014 and the matter be remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide a fresh. 5. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that though after remand by this court initially the Settlement Officer Consolidation had decided the matter on the basis of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act, but after remand on the revision filed by the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed the order dated 20.07.2019 on merit after considering the evidence and material on record without taking aid of the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act. On being challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that there is contradiction in the reports of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.2013 and the inspection report made available by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, therefore the matter has been remanded back to decide a fresh. Thus there is no illegality or error in the impugned order dated 20.09.2023. The petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 7. Thus there is no illegality or error in the impugned order dated 20.09.2023. The petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 7. It appears that the petitioner had filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H.Act during consolidation proceedings and the said application was allowed by means of order dated 14.02.2014. It appears that the said order was set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and the revision was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of the orders dated 31.01.2015 and 30.06.2015 respectively on the ground that the same has been decided after issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act without jurisdiction. Therefore the petitioner had approached this court by means of Writ Petition Consolidation No.494 of 2015. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich to decide the appeal afresh on merit. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were set aside on the ground that since the objection filed under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H.Act was pending at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act, therefore the Consolidation Officer would be fully competent to decide the same in accordance with law. 8. In compliance of the order passed by this court, the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed the order dated 07.04.2017, which was against the observations made by this court, therefore the petitioner challenged the same in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed by means of order dated 26.05.2018 on the ground that the directions issued by this court in writ petition Consolidation No.494 of 2015(Supra) have not been complied and the order has been passed against the same. The matter was remanded to decide afresh. In pursuance thereof the Settlement Officer Consolidation decided the appeal by means of order dated 20.07.2019 afresh, contained in annexure no.3 to the writ petition. The appeal filed by respondent no.2 has been allowed on merit and the order dated 14.02.2014 passed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside by means of a reasoned and speaking order without any observation regarding issuance of notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act. The petitioner challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 9. The appeal filed by respondent no.2 has been allowed on merit and the order dated 14.02.2014 passed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside by means of a reasoned and speaking order without any observation regarding issuance of notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act. The petitioner challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the pleadings of the parties and affording opportunity of hearing allowed the revision by means of the impugned order dated 20.09.2023 on the ground that there is contradiction in the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.12.2013 and the report made available by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, therefore the matter is required to be re-examined by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to challenge these findings and also could not make any submission in regard to these findings to show that there is no contradiction in the reports of Assistant Consolidation Officer and the report made available by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation nowhere considered that since the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act has been issued, therefore, the objections could not have been decided. Therefore the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before this court is totally misconceived and not tenable, which is liable to be repelled only. 10. One of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer has also been set aside, whereas there was no prayer for setting aside the same. The order dated 14.02.2014 was set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by means of order dated 20.07.2019, therefore, the same stands merged in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. Even otherwise the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived because the order dated 14.02.2014 was in favour of the petitioner, therefore he could not have challenged the same. However he had made a prayer in the revision that the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation may be set aside and the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer may be maintained. Therefore it was to be examined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whether it can be maintained or not. However he had made a prayer in the revision that the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation may be set aside and the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer may be maintained. Therefore it was to be examined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whether it can be maintained or not. Once the Revisional Authority found that the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation itself is not tenable, by means of which the order dated 14.02.2014 was set aside, this court is of the view that there is no illegality or error in setting aside both the orders when the revisional authority found that there is contradiction in the report of Assistant Settlement Officer and the report made available by Settlement Officer Consolidation, on the basis of which the orders have been passed. 11. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the view that the impugned order dated 20.09.2023 has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accordance with law assigning reasons, which does not call for any interference by this court. This petition has been filed on misconceived grounds and lacks merit. 12. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.