Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2006 (M/S) Ramswaroop S/O Sri Jeewan, R/O Village Bahadarpur Saini, Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …... Petitioner. Versus District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector Haridwar, District Haridwar and three others. …Respondents. Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Date May 07, 2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 21-7-2006 passed by respondent no. 1 (Annexure No.4) whereby the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector Haridwar (for short the D.D.C.) has allowed the revision filed by respondent no.4 and set aside the impugned orders dated 12.12.2003 and 20.10.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer Roorkee Sadar and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar (For short A.S.O.C.) respectively. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the year 1993 consolidation proceedings in village Ahadmadpur Grant, Pargana Jwalapur, Haridwar were going on. The petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 and two others filed their objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (For short the Act). According to the petitioner, he as well as Mukanda son of Hoshiyara Parsa Son of Heera and Smt. Chandro wife of Kabool filed their objections. Objection of the petitioner and one Mukanda was to the effect that the deceased Rayali had executed a will in their favour, therefore, they may be recorded Bhumidhar with transferable rights. The objection of Parsa was to the effect that he is son of Heera. Deceased Rayali was widow of Heera and not Munga, therefore, his name be recoded as Bhumidhar being the legal heir. The objection of Smt. Chandro was to the effect that deceased Rayali was her mother, therefore, her name be recorded in revenue record as Bhumidhar. The Consolidation Officer heard the learned counsel for the objectors and after considering the objections and perusing the evidence, the objections of Mukanda, Smt Chandro and Parma were rejected while the version of the petitioner was accepted and it was directed that in Chak No. 448 of village Ahmadpur Grant, pargana Jwalapur, the name of deceased Rayali be struck out and the name of petitioner Ram Swaroop be entered on the basis of will. Accordingly the Consolidation Officer Roorkee (Sadar) passed the order dated 12-12-2003. Aggrieved by the order dated 12-12-2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Smt. Chandro preferred appeal before the AS.O.C. The A.S.O.C. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record recorded his independent finding that the Consolidation Officer has rightly held that the petitioner Raw Swaroop was entitled to the estate of the decease Rayali and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 Smt. Chandro was dismissed vide order dated 20- 10-2004. Aggrieved, the respondent no.4 Smt. Chandro went up in Revision under Section 48 of the Act before the D.D.C., which was registered as Revision No. 212 of 2004-2005. Before the revisional court, the petitioner was not represented. The revisional court after hearing the revisionist respondent no. 4 has allowed the revision and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Officer. It was directed by the order dated 21.07.2006 that the name of deceased Rayali be strike out and in her place, the name of Smt. Chandro be mutated in Chak No. 448 of village Ahmadpur Grant, Pargana Jwalwpur, Tahsil and District Haridwar which gave rise to the present writ petition. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 Smt. Chandro. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served with any notice of revision, hence there was no occasion for the petitioner to contest the revision. Learned counsel further submitted that since no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law. From a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional court, i.e. D.D.C. it is obvisous that the revisional court has no where mentioned that the petitioner Raw Swaroop was served with the notice of the revision or that there was service by refusal of notice. The order does not disclose that the petitioner had ever put in appearance in the revisional court. Even in the counter affidavit, no averment has been made that the petitioner had been served with the notice or that he had due knowledge of the date fixed for hearing in the revision. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, without going into the merits, I am of the view that to meet the ends of justice, it is a fit case for remand to the D.D.C. The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 21-07-2006 passed by the respondent no. 1 is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 21-07-2006 passed by the D.D.C. is set aside. The case is remanded to the D.D.C., who shall decide the revision afresh expeditiously as far as possible, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Costs easy. Till the decision of the revision by the D.D.C. concerned, both the parties shall maintain status quo as on today. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP