IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 129 OF 2002 (MS) Asgar ……..Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. ………….Respondents. Mr. M.S. Tyagi & Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1 to 3. Served but none appeared for respondent no. 4 to 9. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 28.3.2001 & 27.9.2000 passed by respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an appeal was filed by the respondent no. 4 being Appeal No. 547/993 under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 along with an application for condonation of delay against the order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 3. In the appeal, the respondent no. 4 has submitted that on his holding, Plot No. 315 and 341 have been shifted and on Plot No. 315 and 341, the respondent no. 4 has been given the Chak. In the appeal he has prayed for shifting of his Chak over Gata No. 184 and 183. After 2 hearing the parties and taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Court below was set aside. 4. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed a revision being Revision No. 337/2000-2001 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 stating therein that the Chak of the petitioner should be fixed adjoining to his father’s Chak. The revision of the petitioner was allowed and the order passed by the appellate Court dated 27.9.2000 was partly amended. 5. As much as possibility was there to amend the order passed by the court below, the revisional court has done so much by allotting the Chak to the petitioner near the Chak of his father so that it may be comfortable for the petitioner to look after the Chak. 6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the revisional Court, therefore, the same requires no interference at all. The order passed by the revisional Court is affirmed. 7. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour 3