IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 564 of 2006 (M/S) Mazeed son of Shri Maradu, Resident of Village Jabardastpur, Tehsil and Pargana Roorkeee, District Haridwar. .... Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar and three Others. ..... Respondents. Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent. Date:- 25.11.2008 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Brief means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a relief for quashing the order dated 29.3.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar Camp, Roorkee in Revision no. 536/2002-03 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) whereby the amendment application dated 17.8.2004 was allowed on cost of Rs. 500/- Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 moved an amendment application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 17.8.2004 on the ground that at the time of filing revision the position of chaks was wrongly written due to lack of map. When this fact came to the notice after seeing the map, respondent nos. 2 to 4 moved the said application. Deputy Director Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar Camp, Roorkee, allowed the application on cost of Rs. 500/- vide order dated 29.3.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before this court that the amendment application was not maintainable because the aforesaid fact was in the knowledge of the respondent nos. 2 to 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record and also the impugned order dated 29.3.2008. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the amendment application on the ground of revision that by the mistake the position of chaks has been shown in north instead of south due to lack of map. To clarify this fact, the amendment application was moved to clarify the fact. I find no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.3.2008 as the amendment application cannot be rejected on the hyper technical ground, and the explanation given by respondent nos. 2 to 4 was sufficient to allow the amendment application. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 16.5.2006 is vacated. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar Campt, Roorkee is directed to decide the revision no. 536 of 2002-03 (Rehem Ilaahi and other Vs. Mazeed and others) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the dated of production of certified copy of this order. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) Dated: 25.11.2008 RMY