The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted inasmuch as though it is true that in the operative portion of the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 23.03.2010, with the observation that order dated 04.08.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer is upheld, that arrangement has to be read as part of the order and the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the earlier portion of his order, wherein, it has been clearly opined that the order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Settlement Office Consolidation is nothing but a mere reiteration of the earlier order dated 04.08.1982 passed by the S.O.C. which order, in turn had been set aside by an earlier order in revision, dated 19.01.2010. Having given that reason the revising authority thereafter provided that the matter may be remitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The revising authority has not recorded any finding to uphold the reasoning and the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer and also he did not make any appraisal of evidence on record to support the conclusions reached by the
