LPA No.59/08 28.8.2008 Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, counsel, for the appellants. None for the respondents. This appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the order passed by the Director of Consolidation of Holdings has been set aside and the order passed by the Addl. Director, Consolidation has been upheld. The facts of the case are that before the Consolidation Officer consent order was passed on the request of the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal was decided in favour of the petitioner without deciding the question whether the Consolidation Officer has pressurized the petitioner for the consent order. Aggrieved by the said order of appeal, another appeal was filed before Addl. Director, who set aside the order passed in appeal. Thereafter revision was filed before the Director who set aside the order passed by the Addl. Director. In such circumstances, writ petition No.770 of 2007 was filed before the learned Single Judge. Interestingly, we do not find that any finding has been recorded by the first Appellate Court that the petitioner was pressurized by the Consolidation Officer for the consented order. However, certain allegations were made against the Consolidation Officer in the appeal. Once allegations of malafidies are made, the person concerned becomes necessary party. The officer concerned was not impleaded as party in personal capacity in the appeal, neither the first Appellate authority nor the Director had taken into consideration that the appellant was pressurized by the Consolidation Officer. In absence of such findings in those authorities, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not erred in law and has rightly decided the writ petition by a speaking order. We are in agreement with the order passed by learned Single Judge. We further find that no order could have been passed in favour of the appellant unless the issue “that the petitioner had consented under pressure” was decided. With these observations no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Jagdish Bhalla), CJ ( Kuldip Singh) J. August 28, 2008 (sks)