Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 290 OF 2001 (Old No. 16177 of 1996) Nathoo Singh ………. Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and others. ………. Respondents ……………… Sri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing counsel for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri M.C.Kandpal, Senior Advocate, Sri Sharad Sharam and Sri M.S.Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 9. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition is directed against the judgment and orders dated 05.01.1996, 30.08.1995 and 14.12.1993 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. 2. The petitioner purchased land from different land owners in the years between 1986 to 1991. He applied fro getting his name mutated in the revenue records before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee. His name was mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 11.10.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee. During consolidation the Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared a statement setting forth the principles to be followed in carrying out consolidation operations in the unit. In pursuance of the objections filed by contesting respondents, provisional consolidation scheme was published by the Consolidation Officer under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and thereafter objections to the provisional consolidation scheme filed by the respondents were disposed of by the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter the authorities proceeded further. The vendors of the petitioner did not disclose before the Consolidation Officer that since they have already transferred their land in favour of the petitioner, fresh notice be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the carvation of the chak in favour of his vendor, he filed objections under Section 121(1) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer, Rorkee. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the petitioner’s objection on 14.12.1993 as barred by limitation. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 30.08.1995. The appellate authority rejected the objection with regard to plot Nos. 142 and 149 on the ground that since the petitioner did not file objection at the relevant time, therefore his prayer cannot be accepted. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 30.08.1995 the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Roorkee Camp) which was also dismissed on 05.01.1996. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders on the record. 4. The courts below did not rely on the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the proceeding rather 2 the petitioner had full notice and knowledge in respect to the consolidation proceeding but no objection was made in that respect. The petitioner’s claim was rightly disallowed and the finding in respect to plot Nos. 142 and 149 cannot be said to be unjust. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact which calls for no interference. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh 3