IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 139 of 2002 Date of Decision: 12.5.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Bhagat Ram … Petitioner Versus Director Consolidation & ors. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for Respondent No.1. Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral ). This petition is directed against the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation in case No. 177/96, dated 8.5.1996, whereby he has rejected the revision petition filed by the present petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the dispute revolves around old khasra No. 223/125. Admittedly, the area of Ambota, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, came under the provisions of H.P. Consolidation of Holdings and (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 and consolidation proceedings were started. Out of khasra No. 223/125 measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas, 50% was allotted to the - 2 - petitioner and 50% was allotted to respondent No.2 Nikka Ram. This order was challenged by filing a revision petition. The petitioner was not present when the revision petition was decided. The Additional Director of Consolidation after verifying the record came to the conclusion that khasra No. 223/125 has rightly been allotted to the respondent. While doing so, he has relied upon the judgment dated 3.4.1999 passed by the Sub Judge, Barsar in Case No. 496/98. Even the appeal filed by Bhagat Ram was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur on 18.3.2003. It appears that nothing further has been done thereafter. It is thus apparent that the Civil Court has held that Nikka Ram is the owner of the land in question. Even otherwise, no error in the order of Consolidation Officer has been pointed out in the petition. Even the order of the Consolidation Officer which is purported to have been upheld by the Additional Director of Consolidation has not been placed on record. Unless such order is placed on record, the same cannot be set aside. The only ground urged is that the major portion of the land belongs to the petitioner and, therefore, the khasra in dispute should have been allotted to the petitioner. Even in support of this argument, no material has been placed on record as to where major portion of land of the petitioner was situate. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. May 12, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.