IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1209 of 2008. (Old CMWP No. 11399 of 1985) Ratan Lal Bali Son of Dewan Chand, resident of Mohalla Tanda Ujjan Post Office Kashipur, District Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). … Petitioner. Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad Camp Kashipur, District Nainital and 4 others. …Respondents. Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri V.N.Agarwal and Sri K.C.Tiwari, Advocates, for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Date September 09, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned orders. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25-10-1980 (Annexure C) passed by the Consolidation Officer Kashipur as well as the order dated 27-6-1985 (Annexure D to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1- Assistant Director of Consolidation. According to the petitioner, the dispute relates to plot no. 168 measuring 1-03 Acre, situated in village Pasiyapur, Pargana and Tehsil Kashipur. The notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) took place on 20-4- 1970 and notification under Section 52 of the Act was published on 30-7-1977. Objection under Section 9-A of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 25-7-1977 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer alleging that he has been in possession of the disputed plots for the last 20-25 years and had acquired Sirdari rights thereon. When he came to know that Gram Samaj was recorded over the disputed plot, the objection was filed. Along with the objection, benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also claimed. The Assistant Consolidation Officer in turn submitted his report to the Consolidation Officer to the effect that the disputed plot is recorded as Abadi. It was also 2 mentioned that since notification under Section 52 of the Act has already been published therefore nothing could be done. The Consolidation Officer after considering the material held that the application/objection by the petitioner was filed with a delay of 7-8 years and delay has not been explained satisfactorily, hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was also held by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 25-10-1980 that the consolidation court has no jurisdiction to enter Abadi. Accordingly the application of petitioner was rejected. According to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner over an area of 0.62 acre abadi had also been accepted by the civil court before whom the respondent nos. 4 and 5 contested the civil suit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25-10-1980, Revision under Section 48 of the Act bearing No. 149 was preferred before the Assistant Director of Consolidation Ghaziabad (Camp Kashipur). The revisional court has observed that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital on 25-11-1981 and that the second appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the High Court. Ultimately, the revisional court did not find favour with the petitioner and held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and on that ground the revision was dismissed vide order dated 27-6-1985, which gave rise to the present writ petition. I have perused the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Assistant Director of Consolidation. The learned Consolidation Officer has given a categorical finding that prayer was made by the petitioner to enter his name in Abadi. Learned Consolidation Officer has held that the consolidation court has no jurisdiction to enter Abadi land and the objection of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay as well as the prayer of 3 the petitioner being beyond the scope of consolidation court. Moreover, according to the petitioner himself, he had moved an application for entering his name over the Abadi before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 25-10-1980 both on the ground of jurisdiction as well as being barred by time and the revision preferred against that order too has been rightly dismissed on the same grounds by the Assistant Director of Consolidation- respondent no.1 vide his order dated 27-6-1985. After having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the considered view that there is no perversity in the orders impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed outright. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 20-1-1988 stands vacated. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4