IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2279 OF 2001 (M/S) Krishnapal Singh ……………..Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. ..….Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Mr. A.K. Sharma, & M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to 7. 25th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 31.1.2000 and 4.5.2001 passed by the courts below (Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 to 6 were the co-sharers of Gata No. 195, 196 and 197 situate at Village Shahiwala Grunt, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. As per the petitioner, at the time of allotment of Chaks, the Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted Chak No. 64 to the petitioner on his original holding with the consent of other co-sharers. Against the allotment of Chak, respondent no. 2 to 7 did not file any objection, hence, the Assistant Consolidation Officer confirmed the petitioner’s Chak No. 64 on Gata No. 195, 196 and 197. The respondent no. 7 preferred an appeal in the Court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Roorkee being Appeal No. 720 Dhyan Singh Vs. Atama Ram and others against the order of Consolidation Office, Roorkee dated 19.4.1994. Other farmers of the aforesaid village also preferred their respective appeals in the said Court. All the appeals were heard together by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Roorkee. All the appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 31.1.2000 and Appeal No. 440 Pooran Vs. State and others was the leading appeal. After coming to know that the petitioner’s chak has been disturbed in the Appeal No. 720 Dhyan Singh Vs. Atma Ram and others, the petitioner preferred a revision being Revision No. 222 of 2000-2001 Krishanpal Singh Vs. Atma Ram and others in the Court of Respondent no. 1. The said revision relating to Chak No. 64 was dismissed on 4.5.2001. Respondent no. 1 while deciding the revision of the petitioner held that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation demanding Chak on Gata No. 18/2 where a Semal Tree of petitioner is standing and by accepting the said demand, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has abolished the Gata No. 196 and shifted the Chak on Gata No. 18/2. A finding has further been recorded that once the demand of the petitioner has been accepted at appellate Stage, there is no need to accept the same at revisional state again. 3. Since, both the courts below have recorded finding of fact, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders passed by the courts below are confirmed. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathor