IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.770 of 2007 Reserved on 4.4.2008 Date of decision 30.4.2008 Bhagwan Dass and ors. Petitioners Vs. Director, Consolidation and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr.Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the consolidation proceedings were initiated in Village Khudla under the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, here in after referred to as the ‘Act’. The Consolidation Officer, had passed the order on 26.5.1991. In appeal the matter was remanded back and the Consolidation Officer Sarkaghat District Mandi, passed fresh order on 16.8.1994 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The appeal was preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents before the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer accepted the appeal and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.8.1994 was set aside. 1 Whether reporters of local papers are allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 30(4) of the Act against the order dated 28.10.1999 before the Additional Director, Consolidation. The Additional Director, Consolidation accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.10.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer. The respondents No.2 and 3 filed a revision petition under Section 54 of the Act against the order dated 3.8.2000. The Director, Consolidation accepted the revision on 30.3.2007. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had strenuously argued that the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Director; Consolidation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that once the parties have entered into compromise and the same has been reflected in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 16.8.1994 the parties are bound by the same. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Ashwani K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 had supported the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Director; Consolidation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. What emerges from the facts as enumerated here in above is that the Consolidation officer had passed the order on 16.8.1994. In appeal the matter was remanded back. It has come in the order dated 16.8.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sarkaghat District Mandi that the parties were heard and spot was inspected and the parties have stated that the decision under section 30(2) of the Act may be kept as it was and no further action should be taken . The Consolidation Officer had recorded the statements of all the parties concerned and the same were annexed with the file. Though the order dated 16.8.1994 was a consent order still an appeal was preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 12.10.1994 assailing order dated 16.8.1994. The Settlement Officer without taking into consideration 3 that order dated 16.8.1994 being a consent order set aside the same and passed an order on 28.10.1999. In appeal the Additional Director has specifically taken note of the compromise entered into between the parties as reflected in the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.8.1994. The Additional Director, Consolidation on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties had rightly accepted the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Director Consolidation in a summary manner had accepted the revision preferred by the private respondent on 30.3.2007. The learned Director Consolidation had brushed aside the compromise entered into between the parties as reflected in the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.8.1994. The compromise arrived at between the parties cannot be set at naught merely on the basis of the submission made by Jai Gopal that the statement of his father was recorded in a wrong manner and he had no knowledge for which purpose the statement of his father was recorded. The parties cannot be allowed to wriggle out from the consent order. The parties are bound to obey the consent order. The Consolidation Officer had recorded the statement of the parties and he had visited the spot as gathered from his order dated 16.8.1994. The parties knew their case and the construction they had raised when they had entered into compromise before the Consolidation Officer. In view of the observation made above, the writ petition is allowed and order of the Director Consolidation dated 30.3.2007 is quashed and set side and the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation dated 3.8.2000 is restored. No order as to costs. April 30 , 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.