1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 209 of 2005 (M/S) Khyali Ram, S/o Sri Pyare Lal, R/o Shimlabahadur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. ..... Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and five others. ... Respondents. Sri J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. None present for respondent nos. 4 to 6 despite of service. Date: - January 2, 2009. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. The writ petition is admitted. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar- respondent no. 1 whereby the respondent no. 1 has allowed the review application. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the earlier order dated 2.6.2004 which was recalled, was passed on merit after hearing both the counsel of the parties whereby the revision was allowed and the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was set aside. 2 The respondent nos. 3 to 5 moved the review application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for recalling the order dated 2.6.2004. By perusal of the review application it reveals that the order dated 2.6.2004 was not and ex parte order. The ground mentioned in the review application is that the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation did not refer the rulings which were place at the time of argument by the counsel of the respondent nos. 3 to 5. The Court had given assurance to correct the order but order was not corrected. Hence, the review application was moved. In recall application prayer was made that corrected order be passed afresh and the operation of the order dated 2.6.2004 be stayed. I have perused the impugned order. By a perusal it appears that the impugned order is a cryptic two line order. No reason has been assigned to allow the application. There was no prayer to set aside the earlier order dated. The prayer was made for correction of the earlier order and stay the operation of the order dated 2.6.2004 without assigning any reason and without considering the objections which were filed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has lost its sight that the Consolidation Court cannot review its own order when the order was passed on merit after hearing both the parties. In view of the Full Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in R.D. 1997 volume 88 page 562 (Smt. Shivraji and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others), the consolidation authority cannot review/recall the final order in exercising its powers. Therefore, the impugned order dated 7.1.2005 is liable to be set aside. 3 The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.1.2005 is set aside. However, the respondent nos. 3 to 5, if they are so advised, may assail the earlier order dated 2.6.2004 before the appropriate forum. Interim order dated 15.3.2005 stands vacated. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 2.1.2009 (B.S. Verma, J.) RMY