R. M. Sahai, J.

1. IN this Writ Petition the question that arises for consideration is whether the Deputy Director Consolidation was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in exercise of his power under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act even though justice has been done between the parties.

2. THE dispute is in regard to land owned by two brothers who died before consolidation started. THE petitioners claim as sister's son and the respondents as sisters. THE dispute before Assistant Consolidation Officer was decided under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by reconciliation on an objection filed by respondents. Against the conciliation orders dated 11-3-70 and 23-2-1970 the petitioner filed four appeals on 7-11-1970 and 9-11- 1970 accompanied by application and affidavits under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. THE delay in filing the appeals was condoned. It was further found that orders were against Rule 25-A. As the petitioner claimed on basis of will cases were sent back with a direction to decide them afresh after giving opportunity to lead evidence. In revision the finding that conciliati