COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 3874/2001 (Old No. 29749 of 1996) Chandra Mohan Pant …….Petitioner Versus District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nainital & Others …….Respondents Sri M.C. Pande, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 3. Sri M.C. Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5. 12th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.9.1995 passed by the respondent no. 1/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nainital and the order dated 7.2.1993 passed by the respondent no. 2/Consolidation Officer, Kashipur, Nainital, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Copies of the aforesaid judgments dated 4.9.1995 and 7.2.1993 are annexed as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition respectively. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the claim of the petitioner for a chak road was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.2.1993. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed vide order dated 18.4.1994 holding that petitioner had no access to his abadi. One Mr. Nishith Kumar, who was the respondent 2 in the appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, filed a restoration application for setting aside the order dated 18.4.1994 on the ground that the same had been passed ex parte against him. The aforesaid restoration application was allowed. Thereafter the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide his order dated 27.6.1994 again allowed the appeal of the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.6.1994, the respondent no. 5/Gandhi Ashram filed a revision before the respondent no. 1/District Deputy Director of Consolidation on the grounds, inter alia, that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had no power to review and that the second order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.6.1994 had been passed ex parte against the Gandhi Ashram. The revision filed by the Gandhi Ashram was allowed by the impugned order dated 4.9.1995 and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.6.1994 was set aside by the respondent no. 1/District Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. The only demand of the petitioner is to provide the pathway, but while allowing the revision of respondent no. 5/Gandhi Ashram, neither any direction has been issued in this regard nor the matter was remanded back to decide the dispute afresh. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to settle the dispute, I find it absolutely necessary that District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation of the District shall inspect the spot as per the averments made in the writ petition and provide the pathway to the petitioner and other villagers, if it is in the larger interest 3 of the village people. Only on this issue, the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the abovementioned issue only. The order shall be passed under Section 48 of the Act after giving notice to all the concerned parties and after affording them the opportunity of hearing. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 12.8.2008 Prabodh