SHISHIR Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of present writ petition petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24. 10. 2008 (Annexure 10 to writ petition) passed by revisional authority by which revision filed by petitioners has been rejected. An objection was filed by respondents regrading property. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has recorded a finding in favour of petitioners. Appellate Authority while considering the issue has recorded a finding that document of service book, which was filed has not been considered properly and no formal issue was framed and this document was taken into consideration for the purposes of evidence before the Appellate Authority, therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that matter be remanded to Consolidation Officer to decide the said issue after giving full opportunity to the parties on the basis of merit. Petitioners aggrieved by present order has filed a revision. Revisional court has dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in view of Apex Court judgement reported in 1996 (87) Revenue Decision, 192 Preetam Singh Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, revisional court has full jurisdiction to decide the issue having last Court of fact. Instead of remanding the matter, same should have been decided. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgement of this Court reported in 2006 (101) Revenue Decision 119 Ramgroo and others Vs. Ram Sumer and others and has placed reliance upon para 7 of said judgement. The same is being quoted below:- "7. In consolidation matters, often it happens that people start challenging revenue entries standing for more than half, half or quarter century. The presumption attached with the correctness of revenue entries particularly if they are continuing for a very long time and since before Zamindari Abolition cannot be lightly taken to be rebutted. Oral evidence of the things which may have happened long before is not easy to find except in rare cases where something extra ordinary is shown to exist. Certainty in respect of property rights is very essential. General uncertainty in respect of revenue entries standing since long and before Zamindari Abolition may lead to anarchy. In several cases Consolidation Courts have done exactly the same. The purpose of consolidation is taken to be resurrection of dead (buried) disputes or revival of dormant ones. In fact this is not the spirit of Consolidation Act. Under section 9 (2) of U. P. C. H. Act only disputes of recent past may be raised. Consolidation Act provides a new forum for adjudication of disputes but not a new opportunity for the same. In some cases people assert their rights on the basis of revenue entries which discontinued about 100 years before the Consolidation Courts seriously entertain the said objections and some times direct reversal of revenue entries continuing for about 100 years. There are several doctrines of law on the basis of which such exercise is prohibited like Limitation, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Presumption of Correctness of Official Acts including revenue entries becoming stronger and stronger by passage of time, waiver, implied surrender and implied ouster etc. However, independently of all these principles, such exercise is to be nipped in the bud on the doctrine of public policy. It is against public policy to permit a person to seek reversal of state of affairs continuing for scores of years. A certain but some what erroneous state of affairs is better than almost correct but uncertain state of affairs. To maintain state of affairs continuing since very long which may have some elements of inaccuracy is better than to thoroughly analyse the inaccuracy after expiry of long time since inception of the said affairs and reverse the same after through discussion of attending circumstances at the time of start of said state of affairs. " In view of aforesaid fact, learned counsel for petitioners submits that as revisional Court ought to have considered the said issue instead of remanding the same to the Appellate Authority, revisional Court was not justified in dismissing the same. The cases cited by learned counsel for petitioners are not applicable in the present case because issue regarding parentage was to be considered and Appellate Authority considering the said fact has remanded the matter only to consider and decide the same. Revisional Court on a revision filed by petitioners was of the opinion that as Appellate Authority itself after consideration of issue regarding service book submitted, no issue has been framed and on that basis Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to be decided after hearing both the parties, therefore, it will not be justified to interfere. The revisional Court has not decided the issue of the case on merits as it was a case against the order of remand to be decided by Consolidation Officer, therefore, in that situation, revisional court has recorded such finding. In my opinion, admittedly, from perusal of record, Consolidation Officer has not considered the issue in the light, which should have been considered, as such, the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that this issue was to be decided. I find no justification to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed. As the matter is old, therefore, Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the case on the basis of remand by Appellate Authority within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. .;