COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 2464/2001 Shahdev Singh …….Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar And Others. …….Respondents Sri M.S. Tyagi, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2. 4th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 28.10.1995 and 30.5.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no. 4, Balraj Singh had filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18.3.1994 stating that the Gata number 145 may be shifted to north side of the Bag from the west side. Petitioner had objected against it. The Consolidation Officer had shifted the chak of the respondent no. 4 from the north side of the Bag to the west side because of which there was shadow over the chak of the respondent no. 4. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 4 and shifted his chak to north side of the Bag. 2 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revision of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.5.2001. 4. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide his order dated 28.10.1995 allowed the appeal of respondent no. 4 and shifted his chak to north side of the Bag and has recorded a finding that there is no loss to the opposite parties from this and the appellant/respondent no. 4 is also satisfied with it. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. The impugned orders have been passed on merit and the findings are based on consolidation records and map of the chaks. Hence, matter is concluded by the finding of fact. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 4.8.2008 Prabodh