IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2000 (MS) (Old No. 14648 of 1993) Hushmat Khan ……..Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others. ………Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/1. 8 th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.1.1993 passed by the respondent no. 1, whereby the revision filed by the respondent no. 2(now deceased) was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Chak – holder of Chak No. 277, whereas, respondent no. 2 and 3 are Chak Holders of Chak No. 48 and 10, which was allotted to them by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Against the proposed allotment, petitioner being satisfied did not file any objection, but the respondent No. 2 and 3 (now deceased) filed their objection. The Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.2.1991 rejected the objections filed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 (now deceased) on the ground that petitioner is a very small tenure holder and no change against him is possible. Against the said judgment, Respondent no. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 308 under Section 21 (2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 10.5.1991. Against the said judgment, respondent no. 2 and 3 (now deceased) preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revisional Court vide order dated 13.1.1993 allowed the said revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the judgment and orders passed by all the three courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second Chak allotted to the petitioner by respondent no. 1 is completely Udan for him and absolutely a bad quality land having no source of irrigation, far away from Abadi, Sandy and Usar, which has resulted into serious prejudice to the petitioner’s interest. 5. Settlement Officer Consolidation while dismissing the appeal of the respondents has recorded a finding that the document available on record does not show that there is any Samadhi on original Holding Plot No. 243. A finding was further recorded that if the respondents are given Chak on their original holding, then Chak Holder of Chak No. 272 and the respondents will be given two chaks in place of one Chak, which is not suitable for a small tenure holder. The revisional Court has shifted the Chak of the respondents on Original Holding No. 243. 6. In my view the revisional Court has fell into error by allotting Chak No. 243 to the respondents in place of Chak No. 272 and the appellate Court has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2 and 3. The petitioner is a small tenure holder and the process to adjust him to another plot, which is Udan, of bad quality land having no source of irrigation, far away from Abadi Sandy and Usar, frustrates the very purpose of Consolidation. The order dated 3.1.1993 passed by the respondent no. 1 is quashed. The order passed by the appellate Court as well as of the trial Court are affirmed. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma