IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3879 OF 2001 (M/S) Mustaqu …..Petitioner Versus. Additional District Magistrate (F &R)/D.D.C., Nainital & others ……..….Respondents Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Abdul Wahid, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 21.07.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 6.7.1996 passed by the respondent no. 1 in revision no. 52/93 of 1995-96 filed by the petitioner against Sri Bholoo (since deceased), father of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed a partition suit bearing no. 22/6 of 1971-72 U/s 176 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Aforesaid suit was decided on 25.2.1972 wherein the petitioner was given 4.91 acres and Bholoo was given 3.08 acres of land. Keeping the advantage of the fact that the names of the parties were not mutated in the revenue records, Sri Bholoo (since deceased) again filed a suit bearing no. 22/26 of 1977-78 for partition wherein a direction was passed by the Assistant Collector vide its order dated 24.4.1979 that the order dated 25.2.1972 passed in suit no. 22/6 of 1971-72 is final. In the year 1990-91 when the consolidation proceedings were started in the village 2 Babarkhera, late Sri Bholoo filed objections before the Consolidation Officer praying for separation of plot no. 501/1 and plot no. 502 measuring 1.60 acre and 0.11 acre respectively in his favour. The Consolidation Officer did not consider the fact that a suit U/s 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has already been decided between the parties, decided the objection of Sri Bholoo in his favour vide order dated on 2.3.1994. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 2.3.1994 which was rejected vide order dated 4.6.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision challenging the order dated 4.6.1994 which was also dismissed on 6.7.1996 by holding that the order passed by the court below is based on the merit of the case and no interference is required by the revisional court. 3. Perused the impugned order as well as the documents available on record. 4. I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order as both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 is affirmed. 5. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour