Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.630 of 2002 Antu S/o Kashi (Now deceased through legal heirs/ legal representatives) 1/1 Smt.Shanti Devi, 1/2 BhanwarSingh, 1/3 Rajkumar 1/4 Janeshwar All sons of late Antu and others ………. Petitioners Versus Baru Singh ……… Respondent ……………….. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 27.06.2001 and order dated 20.06.2002 contained in Annexure Nos. 8 & 10 respectively to this petition. 2. The respondent is the owner of Gata no. 270 & 271. The area of said Gata is equal on spot according to the settlement record and at the time of survey no change was found in area. Therefore, the respondent did not file any objection in respect of area of Gata No.270 & 271 and his chak also became final on his original holding. After completion of the consolidation proceedings the respondent filed an objection on 23.09.1999 after seven years of preparation of Consolidation Scheme. In his objection the respondent claimed that the area of his Gata No.270 & 271 be 2 increased and he further prayed to reduce the area of the petitioners Gata Nos. 313, 318 & 272. The said objection was supported by application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act. The Consolidation Officer, Rookree allowed the limitation and entertained the objection filed by the respondent. He accordingly, recalled the order dated 29.01.1994 fixed 11.07.2001 for evidence of the applicant-plaintiff. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the District Deputy Director Consolidation, Haridwar by the impugned order dated 20.06.2002. 3. I have heard Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent despite sufficient service upon him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the revisional court is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. The revisional court recorded finding to the effect that only the opportunity of hearing has been given to the parties and it is settled law that the parties should be given opportunity of hearing. The revisional court committed no mistake in dismissing the revision and affirming the order passed by Consolidation Officer. No party can be deprived of his right of hearing on technical ground. I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below impugned in this petition. 5. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma) 26.08.2008 P.Singh 3