Rajiv Joshi, J.

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

4. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.3.2019 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 501, whereby the revision was allowed setting aside the order dated 20.2.2016 passed by Consolidation Officer as well as order dated 7.4.2017 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide it afresh.

5. Facts as reflect from record are that after the consolidation operation in the village, two objections were filed, one was filed by Lalmati, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and other by Kawalpati, predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.2. Both the objections were decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.2.2016 and determined the share of the parties to the extent of 1/2 in the property in dispute. During the pendency of the objection before the Consolidation Officer, Kawalpati had died and in her place respondent no.2 was substituted as her legal heir/representative. Being not satisfied with the order passed by Consolidation Officer, respondent no.2 filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), which was registered as Appeal No. 2714 and the same was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 7.4.2017. Against that order, a revision was filed on 24.4.2017 by respondent no.2 under Section 48 (1) of the Act.

6. During the pendency of the revision, Lalmati was died and in her place, petitioner was substituted as her legal heir/representative. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 16.3.2019 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 7.4.2017 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as order dated 20.2.2016 passed by Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh after due opportunity to the parties,.

7. The order dated 16.3.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer is impugned in the writ petition.

8. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while remanding the matter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him in view of Explanation 3 of Section 48, which empowers the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the matter himself after appreciating the evidence available on record being a last court of fact.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the finding as recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while remanding the matter to Consolidation Officer.

10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

11. Admittedly, the matter was remanded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to Consolidation Officer vide impugned order, but the question arises for consideration in the writ petition is whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional power can upset the finding recorded by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation or not.

12. For that purpose, deciding the said issue, provisions of Section 48 of the Act, which was amended by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963 is necessary to be considered. Before its amendment, Section 48 of the Act reads as under:

"48. The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case if the officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the