Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.862 of 2002 Mahmood Hasan ………. Petitioner Versus District Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Collector, Haridwar and others. ……… Respondents ……………….. Sri M.S.Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 12.10.2001 and 16.10.2002 passed by respondent Nos. 2 & 1 respectively. 2. The petitioner is the original tenure holder of Khasra No.157/16 M area 0.143 hectare and Khasra No.157/17 area 0.326 hectare total area 0.469 hectare situated at Village Ulheri, Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No.3/Consolidation Officer, Roorkee by his order dated 28.11.2000 made some changes in Chak No.184. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 28.11.2000 respondent No.4 preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation after hearing the parties and taking into account the balance of convenience allowed the appeal of the 2 respondent No.4 on 12.10.2001. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 12.10.2001 the petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.1/District Deputy Director of consolidation on the ground that the petitioner has been deprived of his original holding against the provision of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The respondent No.1 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner vide, impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite sufficient service, the respondent No.4 did not put his presence. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court wrongly held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and he has been allotted chak on his original holding and dismissed the revision accordingly. The record clearly shows that the appeal was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer by the respondent No.4 – Asgar and not the petitioner. The revisional court committed error in holding that the appeal of the appellant-revisionist (petitioner herein) has been allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and no loss is occurred to the petitioner since he has been allotted chak on his original holding. Hence the impugned order dated 16.10.2002 is liable to be set aside. 4. The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 16.10.2002 passed in Revision No.362 of 2001, Mahmood versus Asgar and others is set aside. The case is 3 remanded back to the revisional court and the revisional court i.e. District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar is directed to hear the parties afresh and decide the revision in the light of observation made above within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (P.C.Verma) 26.08.2008 P.Singh