IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1360 of 2008 (M/S) Sunil Kumar son of Shri Ram Saran, R/O Mohalla Rahamkhani Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus Dharm Prakash S/O Ram Saran, R/O Mohalla Rahamkhani Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and two others. … Respondents. Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date September 12, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. The only prayer made in this writ petition is for mandamus commanding the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar to expedite and conclude the application and proceedings of Appeal No. 871 (new No. 281 of 2005-06) Sudhir Kumar and others Vs. Dharm Prakash pending before him. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and respondents are real brothers. During consolidation proceedings the Consolidation Officer passed order on 5-2-1994 in respect of Khata No. 134 of village Sarvarkhera as in the said Khata No. 134 name of respondent no. 1 has wrongly been entered as co-owner on which the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 2 and 3 were in possession. The petitioner as well as respondent nos. 2 and 3 preferred Appeal Nos. 871 and 842 under Section 11(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Nainital (for short S.O.C.). Before the S.O.C. the parties entered into a compromise, on 23.1.1993, which was duly signed by all the parties vide Annexure No.1. As per term of the compromise, it was ordered that the name of respondent no. 1 be excluded from Khata No. 134 and names of petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 2 and 3 be recorded having 1/3rd share each and the 2 order dated 5-2-1994 passed in Case No. 1744 and 1747 was set aside. A copy of the order dated 17-12-1994 has been annexed as Annexure No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the back of the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3, order dated 17-12-1994 had been recalled by the S.O.C. by his order dated 29-12-2006. Thereafter, when the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 2 and 3 came to know of the order, they moved an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar for recalling the order dated 29-12-2006 on 28-6-2007 (copy Annexure No.5), but the same is still pending for disposal. In the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application moved by the petitioner is still pending for disposal. Learned counsel has urged that the ends of justice would be subserved if the S.O.C. Udham Singh Nagar is directed to decide the application dated 28-6-2007, which has been moved for restoration of Appeal No. 871 (New No. 281 of 2005-06, Dharm Prakash Vs. Sudhir Kumar, within a stipulated time. Prayer is innocuous. Accordingly, the S.O.C. Udham Singh Nagar is directed to decide the application of the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 2 and 3 moved for restoration of Appeal NO. 871 (New No. 281 of 2005-06 (copy Annexure No. 5) expeditiously as far as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4 5