JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Shri O.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anand Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present case is arising out of two objections filed by Alibas, Dost Mohammad, Neur, Rasool sons of Idu and Smt. Dukhni, daughter of Bullah @ Billar under Section 9 -A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, of 1953”) in regard to Khata No.142 of Village- Kanchanpur, District-Deoria. 3. First set of objection filed by 4 brothers was based on a claim of co-tenancy being on ancestral property, whereas second set of claim was based on sole tenancy. 4. The Consolidation Officer, Deoria as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected both objections vide orders dated 23.1.1976 and 8.3.1976 respectively and held that land in suit would remain in the name of legal heirs of deceased Ali Hasan and his three sons i.e. original petitioners herein that they shall have undivided share of 1/3rd part of land in suit. 5. Objections filed by Dost Mohammad and others was rejected on a ground that land in suit was never remained an ancestral land and held that Ali Raza who was recorded in Khata No.1359. (Original tenure) has compromised with Ali Hasan father of petitioners herein in a Suit filed under Section 229 -B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and a (Consent Decree) was prepared on 5.10.1957 and Ali Hasan was declared as Bhumidhar. 6. The objection of second set i.e. of Smt. Dukhni was rejected on ground that she failed to prove that she was daughter of deceased Marchia and she was not able to prove that she was either a Sirdar or a co-tenure. Relevant part of both the orders are reproduced hereinafter: Order dated 23.7.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 7. Both the orders dated 23.1.1976 and 8.3.1976 were challenged by way of filing two appeals, which were rejected by a common order dated 30.11.1976 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, upholding the reasons given by the Consolidation Officer. 8. It was held that Ali Hasan became bhumidhar on basis of a Consent Decree dated 05.10.1957, therefore, claim of Dost Mohammad and other co-tenure holders was rightly rejected. 9. 8. It was held that Ali Hasan became bhumidhar on basis of a Consent Decree dated 05.10.1957, therefore, claim of Dost Mohammad and other co-tenure holders was rightly rejected. 9. The appeal filed by Smt. Dukhni (respondent/since deceased) was rejected by upholding a finding returned by Consolidation Officer that she was not able to prove that she was daughter of deceased Marchia. Relevant part of the said order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is mentioned hereinafter :- 10. Aforesaid order was thereafter challenged by filing two revision petitions before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, who vide order dated 22.08.1978, allowed both revision petitions and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation in regard to objection and appeal filed by Dost Mohd. were set aside and it was held that he will be entitled to 1/5th share of the land in suit. By the same order, Revision Petition filed by Smt. Dukhni (since deceased) was disposed of and matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide her objection afresh by framing an issue on inheritance. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :- 11. Aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by way of filing present writ petition in the year 1978. This Court vide order dated 23.09.1978 granted stay. During pendency of this writ petition, both respondents i.e. Dost Mohammad and Smt. Dukhni died and their respective legal heirs were brought on record. This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 19.11.2020 and restored by an order dated 25.11.2022. 12. Recently petitioner No.1, Azimullah also died and his legal heirs were also brought on record and finally this writ petition was heard on 06.08.2025 i.e. about 47 years. 13. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued that a well reasoned judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation was erroneously interfered by Deputy Director of Consolidation, being beyond jurisdiction as provided under Section 48 of the Act of 1953. 14. Learned counsel for petitioners referred judgments passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has made out a fresh case and conducted proceedings as De Novo only on basis of presumption. The effect of compromise decree was wrongly rejected and 1/5 th share of land in dispute was also wrongly granted to Dost Mohammad (since deceased/respondent). 15. The effect of compromise decree was wrongly rejected and 1/5 th share of land in dispute was also wrongly granted to Dost Mohammad (since deceased/respondent). 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite aforesaid direction, claim of Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/ respondent) was remitted for fresh consideration with a direction to frame issue of her inheritence, without considering that she has claimed sole tenancy over the land in suit and in an event if Consolidation Officer on remand grants relief to Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent), it would be contrary to decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation since 1/5th share has already been granted to Dost Mohammad (since deceased/respondent). 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was a fit case to remand the matter to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision petition afresh within the scope of Section 48 of Act of 1953 and he suggested some issues for consideration. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that compromise decree passed on 5.10.1957 was never challenged though the consolidation proceedings commenced after almost two decades. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that very basis of the claim of Smt. Dukhni (since deceased respondent) was based on a Family Register, however it was not maintained under the provisions of The U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1976, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given a specific finding that land in question was an ancestral land, as such the finding returned that Dost Mohammad, (since deceased respondent) and his brothers have a right over the land in dispute was perverse. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that compromise decree was a collusive decree and on basis of it, father of the petitioner Ali Hasan could not be considered that he was in possession of land in suit as an ‘Adivasi’ and became Sirdar. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that objection of Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) was wrongly rejected by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and it was a correct decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation to remit it to the Consolidation Officer for a decision of inheritence of Smt.Dukhni. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that objection of Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) was wrongly rejected by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and it was a correct decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation to remit it to the Consolidation Officer for a decision of inheritence of Smt.Dukhni. However, he is not able to dispute that since Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed a specific order directing 1/5th share of land in suit to Dost Mohammad (since deceased/respondent), no relief could be granted to Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/ respondent) even if the matter is remanded to the Consolidation Officer since it would be contrary to order of Deputy Director of Consolidation as Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) has claimed sole tenancy. 22. It is well settled that Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide powers, but it is not expected by him to disturb finding of facts and concurrent findings recorded by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, except when the findings are perverse i.e. not supported by evidence brought on record. (See Sheo Nand Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad , (2000) 3 SCC 103 . 23. As referred above, the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation have accepted and relied on a Compromise Decree dated 5.10.1957, whereby Ali Hasan was declared a Bhumidhar, however, Deputy Director of Consolidation has disbelieved it that 24. Aforesaid observation itself would not be sufficient to dispute the Compromise Decree specially when none of the objectors has approached to competent court to set-aside it for almost two decades before the Consolidation Proceedings were commenced and objections were filed. 25. A decree passed by a Judicial Officer cannot be set-aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as no contrary interpretation could be taken. 26. Finding returned by Deputy Director of Consolidation was only based on an assumption and it was not a case that findings which were disturbed were perverse, therefore, it is a case where Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction and interfered in the concurrent findings of two authorities without giving a finding that it was perverse and being not based on any evidence. In regard to findings returned in the revision petition filed by Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) were also passed without interfering with the concurrent finding that Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) was failed to prove that she was daughter of Marchia. 27. In regard to findings returned in the revision petition filed by Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) were also passed without interfering with the concurrent finding that Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) was failed to prove that she was daughter of Marchia. 27. Revision petition was allowed and matter was remanded to authority concerned to frame a issue in respect of inheritence of Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) and to decide it afresh therefore, order of remand was without any reason and is accordingly unsustainable. The finding returned by Consolidation Officer about daughter of deceased Marchia was also not disturbed. 28. Court also finds substance in argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since on one hand the Deputy Director of Consolidation has granted 1/5th share to Dost Mohammad and on the other hand has remanded matter to consider claim of Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent)without appreciating and considering that Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) had claimed sole tenancy over the land in dispute, therefore, directions being contradictory, being also a ground for causing interference. 29. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court is of the view that order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is legally not sustainable. 30. Now the question left before this Court for consideration that in such circumstances wherein present writ petition is being decided after 48 years, whether it would be reasonable to remand it to Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order. 31. Court has considered the rival submissions on this issue also and is of the opinion that at this belated stage, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh consideration. The Court is of the view that concurrent finding returned by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation were based on documents and based on a Compromise Decree as well as that Smt. Dukhni (since deceased/respondent) was not able to show any document that she was the daughter of deceased Marchia, therefore, there was no reason for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to interfere with it, accordingly, Court is of the view that matter may not be remanded back. 32. In the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set-aside and its legal consequence shall follow.