IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 26657/2000) Mani Ram son of late Shri Fakeera, Resident of Village Manna Kheri, Pargana Mangloor, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor Camp Harisdwar, Roorkee and four others. ….. Respondents. Sri Prikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent no .5. None for the respondent no.4 despite of service. Date: - December 16, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1 and the order dated 10.2.1999 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 12.8.1993 (Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition) passed by the Consolidation Officer. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the plot no. 134/1 area 0.154 in village manna Khera was reserved for Harijan Abadi during the consolidation proceeding. After coming this fact in the knowledge, the petitioner had filed objection before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9 (A) (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The objection filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 12.8.1993. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.1993 passed by the Consolidation Office, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 11 of the Act before Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar, Roorkee allowed the appeal after hearing the petitioner, vide order dated 11.5.1994. When the order dated 11.5.1994 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation came in the knowledge of Village Pradhan concerned, a restoration application was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar, Roorkee for recalling the order dated 11.5.1994 passed in appeal on the ground that the Gram Sabha was not heard and had not been arrayed as respondent party in the appeal. After hearing the Village pardhan, the Settlement Officer Consolidation without issuing notice to the petitioner set aside the order dated 11.5.1994 and the order dated 26.6.1995 which was passed in connected appeal, vide order dated 10.2. 999, and restored the appeal to its original number and furthermore without hearing the petitioner confirmed the order of Consolidation Officer whereby the plot no. 134 area 0.154 was reserved for Harijan abadi. When the order dated 10.2.1999 passed by Settlement officer Consolidation came to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred revision against the order dated 10.2.1999 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not find favour to the petitioner and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 10.2.1999 passed in appeal by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Fruther aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Notice was issued to the respondent no. 4. Despite of service, there is no representation on behalf of Gram Sabha. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The impugned order dated 10.2.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal, was passed on the ground that the Village Pradhan on behalf of the Gram Sabha was not heard. The earlier order dated 11.5.1994 passed by his predecessor whereby the appeal of the petitioner was allowed, was set aside, and the order dated 12.8.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer was maintained without hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.1999, the petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also dismissed the revision on 10.5.2000 and confirmed the order dated 10.2.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has set aside the order on the ground that the Village Pradhan was not heard. The learned Settlement Officer Consolidation has also committed the same error while deciding the recall/restoration application without hearing to the petitioner and decided the appeal on merit. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered this fact that before recalling the order dated 11.5.1994, the petitioner was not heard and thus committed the same error which was committed by the learned Settlement Officer Consolidation before setting aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner. Since no notice was issued to the petitioner before recalling the order and while deciding the appeal, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition is liable to be partly allowed. The writ petition is partly allowed. The part of the impugned order dated 10.2.1999 whereby the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 12.8.1993 was confirmed and order dated 19.5.2000, are set aside and it is directed that the Settlement Officer Consolidation shall decide that appeal no. 278 which was filed by the petitioner as well as the appeal no. 456 filed by his brother namely Tungal on merit. It is made clear that before deciding the appeal the petitioner, the Gram Sabha, Sri Tungal and other affected parties are to be heard. The Settlement Officer Consolidation shall also decide the appeal as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till the decision of appeal, the status quo regarding the possession as on today shall be maintained by the parties. It is further directed that the petitioner shall produce certified copy of this order before the Settlement Officer Consolidation concerned on or before 6th January 2008 and appear himself or through an advocate before Settlement Officer Consolidation on 6.1.2008 and shall produce the certified copy of this order. If the petitioner does not comply the said direction, the interim order passed by this Court shall stand vacated. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 16.12.2008 (B.S.Verma, J.) RMY