Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2237 of 2001 (M/S) 1. Samayuddin 2. Niaj 3. Sultan All sons of Gaffur R/o Khjuri, Pargana- Bhagwanpur Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …………Petitioners. Versus 1. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Haridwar. 2. Settlement Officer Consolidation Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Consolidation Officer Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 4. Sagar (since deceased) now represented by respondents No.5 and 6 S/o Nihala. 5. Kaliram 6. Dip Chandra 7. Puran All sons of Sagar 8. Nawab 9. Yusuf Both sons of Sainni All residents of Village Khajuri Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar. ………Respondents. Shri Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Lok Pal Singh and Shri A.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 9. Hon’ble Prafulla, C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.04.2001, passed by respondent No.1, order dated 20.11.2000, passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 25.06.1996, passed by respondent No.3, whereby on the objections of respondent No. 4, the consolidation authorities has held that plot in question is not grove land. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of that the petitioners who are resident of Village Khajuri, Bhagwarnpu, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, were recorded tenure holder over plot No.11/3. At the time of preparation of provisional consolidation scheme, said plot was shown as grove land and no one objected to it. Later respondent No.4 filed objection before the Consolidation Officer in the year 1995, which was registered as case No. 5292. In the objections, said respondents pleaded that plot No.11/3 be brought under consolidation scheme as it is not actually a grove land. After condoning the delay, the objections were entertained and the Consolidation Officer allowed the objections holding that plot No.11/3 was not a grove land and directed that necessary corrections be made to include the same in the consolidation operations. The petitioner’s case is that they were not given proper opportunity to defend them by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner’s then filed an appeal No. 569 in the year 1996, against the order dated 25.06.1996, passed by the Consolidation Officer. After hearing the parties, said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2000, and the appellate authority concurred with the finding of the Consolidation Officer, after spot inspection holding that plot No.11/3 is not actually grove land. On this the petitioners challenged the order passed by appellate authority (Settlement Officer of Consolidation) by filing revision No.11 of 2000, before respondent No.1 (Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar). Said authority also after hearing the parties found no illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below and affirmed the orders, vide its order dated 25.04.2001. Hence this petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of contesting respondents No. 5, 6 and 7, it has been stated that there are only three trees of mango standing in plot No. 11/3 on the western side of the plot, as such, the plot cannot be said to be grove land. It is further stated that petitioners by moving an application dated 12.09.1995 (copy annexure C.A. 2 to the counter affidavit), themselves requested to include plot No. 11/3 in the consolidation proceedings. It is further stated that on 15.02.1996 and 22.02.1996, petitioner Smyuddin and thereafter on 09.01.1995, petitioner Niaj, were present before Consolidation Officer and they had put their signature in the order sheet, as such, it is wrong to say that they were not given opportunity of being heard. 5. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that respondent Sagar (since deceased), moved objections under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, for corrections and also prayed that plot No. 11/3 has wrongly been shown grove land in the earlier record. There were other corrections sought in respect of plots No. 9/2, 9/3 and 9/4 in connection with which there is no dispute in this writ petition. After condoning the delay in filing the objections, the Consolidation Officer considered the objections and allowed the same partly. The Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 25.06.1996, observed that plot No. 11/3 shall not be treated as a grove land and included it in the consolidation proceedings. Aggrieved by said order dated 25.06.1996, petitioners filed appeal No. 569 before Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar camp, Roorkee under Section 11(1) of the aforesaid Act. After spot inspection and hearing the parties, said appellate authority dismissed the appeal upholding the finding that plot No.11/3 is not a grove land. The petitioners then challenged the order passed by respondent No. 2 and 3 before respondent No.1 (Deputy Director Consolidation) by filing revision No.11 of 2000. Said authority also after hearing the parties concurred with the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 6. Perused of the three orders clearly shows that there is concurrent finding of fact that plot No.11 /3 is not a grove land. Settlement Officer of Consolidation after spot inspection has clearly stated that he found there only three trees in plot No.11/3. In the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that the authorities have erred in law in holding plot No. 11/3 as a grove land. Copy of application dated 12.09.1995, moved by the petitioners copy of which is annexure C.A. 2 to the counter affidavit itself shows that they (petitioners) themselves prayed to the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee to include plot No. 11/3 in the consolidation proceedings. In these circumstances, now the stand taken by the petitioners that the plot is grove land cannot be accepted. There is no dispute as to the position of law that grove land is to be excluded form consolidation operations. As to the ground mentioned in the petition that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard by the Consolidation officer cannot be accepted as they had notice of the case and they appeared before Consolidation Officer. The ground further gets diluted for they (petitioners) were sufficiently heard by the settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation before the impugned orders were passed. Even in the consolidation proceedings, the petitioners did appear but not the date of hearing they remained absent and the case proceeded ex-parte. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, for the reasons as discussed above, this Court dose not find any illegality committed by respondent No.1, respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 04.06.2009 S