IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 635 of 2002 Brijendra Kumar Singh …….Petitioner. Versus D.D.C. & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1, 2 & 5. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 & 4. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2000 and 7.3.2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 1 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner filed two objections under Section 9(A) 2 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 21.7.1993. Petitioner in his objection stated that over Plot No. 224, there exists an orchard of the petitioner where the trees of Eucalyptus, Seesham, Sagaun and prayed for resurvey of the area. The matter was contested by the respondent on merits. Respondent No. 2 after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents concluded the arguments and fixed the date for delivery of judgment on 31.5.2000. On 31.5.2000, respondents moved an application before the Court stating therein that the parties are settling the dispute and the date fixed for delivery of judgment may be adjourned. On 31.5.2000, the respondent no. 2 passed an order observing that the respondents applicant of the application undertook that they will not get the matter transferred and the respondents’ counsel made a 2 statement at bar in this regard and respondent no. 2 posted the matter for delivery of judgment on 5.6.2000. On 5.6.2000, respondent no. 2 passed an order disposing of the objection filed by the petitioner in view of the observations made in the said judgment along with the other objections of the tenure holders. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application for recalling the order dated 5.6.2000. On the said application, respondent no. 2 fixed 7.6.2000 and till the date fixed Amaldaramad was stayed. The petitioner against the restoration application filed a detailed objection duly supported by an affidavit on 12.6.2000. Against the order dated 5.6.2000, petitioner moved a revision being Revision No. 259 of 2000 before the respondent no. 1, but the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 7.3.2001 dismissed the revision of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the objection filed by the petitioner is still pending has not yet been decided. 4. Therefore, in view of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the objection filed under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till then status quo shall be maintained. 5. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour