Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.2358 of 2001 Udhal S/o Shri Bhartu ………. Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation /Collector, Haridwar and others. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 14. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector Haridwar dated 18.04.2001, by which the Revision No.15 of 2000, Udhal versus Jodh Singh and Revision No. 18 of 2000, Udhal versus Smt .Shugani and others filed by the petitioner were dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that during the consolidation proceedings Chak Nos. 41, 116 and 134 were allotted to the petitioner, respondent No.6-Jodh Singh and respondent No.7-Telu respectively by the respondent No.4/Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted the second Chak of Chak No.41 to the petitioner on his larger original holding of Gata No.201as well as to the respondent No.6. The respondent No.5 wife of respondent No.6 has purchased the land of one Bigha through sale 2 deed from respondent No.12 –Atar Singh in his original holding of Gata No.49/2 of Chak No.3 and her name was entered in revenue record by the order dated 25.04.1996 pqssed in case No.170 and respondent Nos. 13 & 14 have also purchased the land in the aforesaid Gata No.49/2 from respondent No.12. Thus, the respondent Nos. 5, 13 & 14 have become the co-sharer in the Chak No.3 with the respondent no.12. The respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have filed objections before respondent No.3/Consolidation Officer against Chak No. 116 and 339 A allotted to them respectively by Assistant Consolidation Officer. In the said proceeding, the petitioner was not a party. The Consolidation Officer has decided the case No.2120 filed by Jodh Singh and No.2121 filed by Smt.Shugni against Gram Sabha by a common order dated 10.01.1997 and disturbed the petitioner’s Chak No.41 without hearing the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer has passed the said order dated 10.01.1997 in case No.2120 on the basis of compromise dated 10.01.1997 between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 & 7 which was not presented in the presence of the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer but presented by Sri Dharam Pal Singh Advocate while the petitioner has not given his consent about this. The petitioner has preferred appeal against the said order dated 10.01.1997 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was decided on 28.06.1999 on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and the respondent N0.6-Jodh Singh as alleged in the order. But the petitioner has not filed any compromise before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for withdrawing the appeal. 3 3. The petitioner came to know from the Patwari of the Consolidation Office that the Hawai Chak No.339 A has been allotted to respondent No.5-Smt.Shugni on the original holding of the petitioner on Gata No.201/2 and Chak road has also been allotted to her between the Hawai Chak of the petitioner and his Garden on Gata No.201 in which his electric tube-well was installed. Then the petitioner has preferred two appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the order dated 10.01.1997 passed by Consolidation Officer in case No. 2121. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed both the appeals, vide order dated 27.11.2000. The petitioner filed separate revisions against Jodh singh and Smt.Shugni and others which were also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector by the impugned order dated 18.04.2001. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned orders available on record. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force that the compromise dated 10.01.1997 was not presented in presence of the petitioner. It is evident from Annexure No.1 itself that the petitioner is a signatory of the said compromise and it was also simultaneously presented on the same day by the parties and the counsel Sri Dharampal Singh. The respondent No.3/Consolidation officer has rightly passed the order dated 10.01.1997 in the spirit of the said compromise and the adjustment made under the said order do not in any prejudice the claim of the petitioner. 4 The court below also did not commit any mistake in allowing the prayer of Smt.Shjugni/respondent no.5 for allotment of a Chak equivalent to the value of the land purchased by her in plot No.49/2 near to the Chak of her husband Sri Jodh Singh. The Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 10.01.1997 after making spot inspection and the appeal and revision have been decided on merit after analyzing the material on record and hearing of the parties. No undue benefit has been given to the respondent No.5 in the impugned allotment and the petitioner has also not suffered any loss. It can not be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The courts below have taken a correct view in the matter. No interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order. 6. In view of above, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.08.2008 P.Singh