IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.321 of 2006 Date of decision: 13.5.2008. Ram Chand …..Petitioner -Versus- The Director, Consolidation of Holdings & another ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For respondents: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for R-1. Mr.Ajay Chandel, counsel for R-2. Deepak Gupta, J(oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh in Case No.33 of 2006 whereby he rejected the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Admittedly, the petitioner and private respondent are brothers. They had a joint holding prior to consolidation. During the process of consolidation the holdings were separated and different khasra numbers were allotted to each of the brothers. This is apparent from the perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer which has been annexed with the petition. Separate khasra numbers were allotted to petitioner Ram Chand and separate khasra numbers were allotted to Sukh Lal respondent No.2. Old khasra No.2863 (new khasra No.692) which is the bone of the contention between the parties was allotted to respondent Sukh Lal. This order was passed some time in the year 1984-85. 2 The main grievance of the petitioner is that since he alongwith respondent No.2 owned 1/4th share each therefore out of the total frontage of 400 meters in the road side he should have been given 100 meters frontage on the road but the petitioner has not been given any land abutting the road. I am not going into the merits of the case since the order allotting the land was passed more than 20 years prior to the petitioner filing the Revision Petition. The Consolidation Officer passed his order allotting the land somewhere in the year 1984-85 and the Revision Petition was instituted on 4.4.2006. Much water has flown to these 20 years. It would not be proper to set the clock back and reopen the entire matter. Both the parties contend that they are in possession of the land in question. It is clarified that the consolidation authorities have not decided the question of possession and only decided the question of allotment. This Court has also not expressed any opinion as to which party is in possession. However, the order of the Consolidation Officer, cannot be set-aside at this belated stage. There is no error in the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh holding that the petition is highly belated. The order calls for no interference. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. May 13, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge