JUDGMENT Dinesh Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.3 to 7. 2. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed herein-under, this Court proceeds to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice to respondent No.8/1 and 9/1, with the consent of the counsel for the parties present and without calling for their respective affidavits. 4. Petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the remand order dated 26.09.222 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur. 5. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the instant writ petition is arising out of proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The names of Nandram, Shivcharan and Mishri sons of Peman were recorded in the revenue record. Objection under Section 12 was filed on behalf of the Maan Singh s/o Mishri (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.3 to 7), claiming his right and title over Khata No.185 being successers of deceased recorded tenure holder namely Nandram and Shiv Charan. The petitioners have filed objections claiming their right and title in the share of Nandram on the ground of succession being daughters of Siya Ram, who was son of Nandram. Consolidation Officer has allowed the objection vide order dated 11.3.2013. Having been aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were preferred on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No.8 i.e. Appeal No.23 (Guddi Devi and others v. Smt. Devki Devi and others) and Appeal No.25 (Nar Singh and others v. Smt. Devki and others). Both the appeals were clubbed together and allowed by the common order dated 27.11.2013 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 7, has allowed the revision and remitted the matter before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the same a fresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to adduce documentary evidence with respect to the date of death of all the three recorded tenure holders. Having been aggrieved against the remand order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners, who are claiming themself to be granddaughters of Nandram. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent enough to decide the revision on merits after re-appreciating the evidence on record as enunciated under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, there is no justification to relegate the parties before the subordinate court i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is further submitted that there is no doubt with respect to the sequence of date of death of the recorded tenure holders, which has categorically been considered and decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, therefore, remand will not serve any fruitful purpose to decide the matter. It is further submitted that order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal, unwarranted under the law, therefore, same is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 7 has contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly remitted the matter before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to consider the documentary evidence i.e. the list of the elected Pradhans from 1995-2010 and the extract of voter list of 1995 and also given an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned to adduce the documentary evidence to prove the sequence of date of death of the recorded tenure holders. It is further contended that under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can re-appreciate only those evidence which are already available on record. However, he could not take fresh evidence and consider the same without giving opportunity of rebuttal to the other side. It is further contended that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed being misconceived and devoid of merits. 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it reveals that the dispute relates to the share belong to the Nandram, Shivcharan and Mishri sons of Peman. Both the parties are claiming their right, title and interest over the property in question being successors of the aforesaid recorded tenure holders. The date of death of all the three recorded tenure holders is disputed. Both the parties are claiming their right, title and interest over the property in question being successors of the aforesaid recorded tenure holders. The date of death of all the three recorded tenure holders is disputed. As per the old law, as enunciated under Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, sequence of date of death of the recorded tenure holders would affect the share of the parties. 9. As per case of the petitioners, they are entitled for the entire share of Nandram being his granddaughters. Admittedly, Shivcharan had died issue-less. Maan Singh S/o Mishri is claiming his right and title over shares of Nandram and Shiv Charan being last survivors. Now, the dispute is with respect to the property belonged to Nandram and Shivcharan. 10. As per case of the respondent Nos.3 to 7, Siya Ram had died in the life time of Nandram, therefore, after death of the Nandram, his property devolved upon the remaining co-sharers. Like-wise after the death of Shiv Charan, who died issue less, his share also devolved upon surviving co-shares. Thus, after death of Nandram and Shiv Charan their shares devolved upon the sole surviving successor namely Mishri. In this view of the matter, date of death of Nandram and Shiv Charan is the paramount question to be decided by the court. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has decided the share of Nandram in favour of the petitioners. It appears that the sequence of date of death of the recorded tenure holders has been decided only on the basis of the oral evidence. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the parties to prove the exact date of death. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has remitted the matter considering the two documents i.e. list of elected Pradhans from 1995-2010 and the voter list of 1995, which was adduced before him at the revisional stage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that matter has been decided only on the basis of oral statements made by the witness, however, the date of death should be proved by the documentary evidence. With this observations, he has remitted the matter before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the matter a fresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. With this observations, he has remitted the matter before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the matter a fresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. As per statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the instant matter is initiated in June, 2007 and since then parties are under litigation. At this juncture, relegating the parties before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation would not be justifiable inasmuch as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has got emmence power to decide the petition on merit. It is further submitted that both the documents, which have been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation where public documents, therefore, same can be considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in deciding the revision. It is apposite to consider that remitting the matter for fresh opportunity to the parties to adduce the documentary evidence will amount a fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties, who have already litigated up to the stage of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is no case of any party that they have been deprived of opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their case. Before the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, there was full opportunity to adduce the documentary evidence to prove the sequence of date of death of the recorded tenure holders, however, parties have not preferred to file any document. Now at this juncture, it would not be appropriate to reopen the entire case by giving an opportunity to adduce evidence. Under Section 44-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, superior authorities are empowered to exercise the power as vested in the courts subordinate. For ready reference provisions as initiated under Section 44-A of the U.P.C.H. Act is quoted herein below:- "44A. Powers of subordinate authority to be exercised by a superior authority. - Where powers are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any authority under this Act or the rules made thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by any authority superior to it." 12. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is explicit that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can also exercise such power and performed such duties which are to be performed by the subordinate authority under the U.P.C.H. Act and the rules thereof, 13. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is explicit that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can also exercise such power and performed such duties which are to be performed by the subordinate authority under the U.P.C.H. Act and the rules thereof, 13. Besides this, Explanation 3 to the Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample power to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of any order which also includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any court subordinate. More so, he is also empowered to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence available on record. 14. For ready reference, provision as initiated under Section 48 and Explanation 3 to the Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is quoted herein below:- "[48. Revision and reference. - (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order] [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit." (2) .................. (3) .................. Explanation. - (1)............. Explanation (2) - .................. [Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.]" 15. Conjoint reading of Section 44-A of U.P.C.H. Act and Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act clearly denotes that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent enough to exercise the power and performed such duties as well which are to be exercised and performed by the courts subordinate to him. Apart from that revisional court is empowered to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence available on record. Remitting the matter just to give a fresh opportunity of hearing and adduce evidence to the parties is not justifiable in the eyes of law, which will promote multiplicity of proceedings and protract the litigation which is against the intent of the legislation. 16. Remitting the matter just to give a fresh opportunity of hearing and adduce evidence to the parties is not justifiable in the eyes of law, which will promote multiplicity of proceedings and protract the litigation which is against the intent of the legislation. 16. Thus, in my considered opinion and also in view of the legal provisions as discussed above, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested in it by law under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Remitting the matter for affording fresh opportunity of hearing, and adducing fresh evidence, to the parties is not sustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as parties have already afforded full opportunity of hearing to adduce the evidence before the courts below and court cannot force to the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. Neither of the parties has claimed that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him before the court below. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent enough to appreciate evidence on record, even which was filed at the revisional stage, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and decide the matter on merits. Simple remand as made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation will amount second round of litigation which is not permissible in the eye of law unless there is compelling circumstances to remit the matter in the interest of justice. 17. I found substance in the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in assailing the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. As such, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 1494 of 2022 is hereby quashed. The revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby restored to its original number and parties are relegating before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to get the revision decided a fresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.1.2023. Respondent No.8/1 and 9/1, who are not appeared before this Court, are also be heard after issuing notices to them.