IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.56 of 2004 Date of decision : August 4, 2010 Smt. Satya Devi and others …Petitioners. Versus Director, Consolidation and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6th December, 2003 of Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh, whereby their Revision Petition against the order of Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur, has been dismissed. 2. Prior to consolidation, petitioners were owners in possession of land measuring 1 kanal, bearing Khasra No.2118. They had been allocated the entire 1 kanal area, bearing old Khasra No.2118. New Khasra number assigned to the area was 999. 3. Respondent No.3 Gurubachni Devi made an application to the Consolidation Officer, for correcting some Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… clerical error, with respect to the land allotted to her, after consolidation. In the course of those proceedings, Consolidation Officer came to know that 26 square metres area, out of Khasra No.999, was required to be allotted to the Panchayat to consolidate its holding. So, he ordered that 26 square metres area, out of Khasra No.999, shown by min number 999/1, be taken out and allotted to the Gram Panchayat and in lieu of that 26 square metres area, petitioners were allotted 24 square metres area, out of Khasra No.1001, depicted by min khasra number 1001/1. Petitioners challenged this order of the Consolidation Officer, by filing revision, which has been dismissed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, vide impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Petitioners’ grievance is that when 26 square metres area had been taken out from Khasra No.999, they should have been allotted equal area and that there is deficiency of 2 square metres area. The deficiency is negligible and while carrying out measurements and making allotments, after consolidation, deficiency or excess to the extent of 2-3 square metres is normally ignored. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed. August 4, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J