IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 841 of 2004. Reserved on: 23.10.2008. Decided on: 3.11.2008. Kesar Singh. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 3(a) to 3(c) and 4 to 6. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Director, Consolidation of Holdings, H.P. dated 14.7.2004 in case No.24/2004. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the consolidation operation was conducted by the consolidation staff in the year 1985-86 in village Kamlah, Mauza Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun, Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - District Hamirpur. It appears from the record that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, H.P. in case No.201/1994 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur on 26.3.2002. The Consolidation Officer passed the order on 28.8.2002 after visiting the spot on 17.5.2002. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings bearing No.24/2004 on 2.3.2004. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings rejected the petition on 14.7.2004. The present writ petition is directed against this order dated 14.7.2004. Mr. Ajay Sharma has strenuously argued that the order dated 14.7.2004 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that his client was entitled to 0-8 marlas of land from Khasra No.1705 and 0- 2 marlas of land from Khasra No.724 old, new 1671, 1672, 1673 and 1674. He also contended that as per old musabi, the Karukans of eastern side of Khasra No.1212/1188 were recorded as 2+9+18+16+2+13=60 whereas in the musabi prepared by the Consolidation staff sum total of Karukans of eastern side had been decreased to 45 and that the northern part of Khasra No.1212/1188 has not been included in the new Khasra No.722 and northern part of Khasra No.1213/1188 has been merged in new Khasra No.690 wrongly, which illegality according to him, has resulted in reduction of land measuring 0-10 marlas. The learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma have supported the order dated 14.7.2004. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is not disputed by the parties that the Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 28.8.2002 after the Director, Consolidation of Holdings has remanded the case on 26.3.2002. It will be apt at this - 3 - stage to reproduce the relevant portion of discussion in the order with regard to Khasra No.1705, which reads thus:- “…… Respondent told that an agreement has been effected between he and applicant and exchanged the land on red line, but he has not been given 0-5 K.M. land in exchanged portion. Today the spot was inspected and the exchange of land occurred between the parties is adjoining to the red line, which part of land 0-3 K.M. comes under the house and the applicant is ready to give such a portion in Khasra No.1705 for which the respondents has also agreed. Therefore, this case is accepted and it is ordered that entries be corrected in the revenue record to the effect that portion measuring 003-65 of Khasra No.1705 min is allotted to the respondent and his sons because of the existence of their toilets there and in exchange Khasra No.1704 and 1719 allotted to applicant.” The consolidation proceedings had started in the village in the year 1985-86. The land measuring 0-03-14 or 0-17 marlas had been allotted to the petitioner from Khasra No.1705 after withdrawing from private respondent, 0-02-44 or 0-13 marlas in Khasra No. 1719 and 0-3 marlas in Lal Lakeer. The case was remanded back involving Khasra Nos.1069 and 1070. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Director, Consolidation of Holdings on 2.3.2004. The order of the Consolidation Officer is dated 28.8.2002. The petitioner has not mentioned in the revision petition that the matter with regard to Khasra Nos. 1069 and 1070 had already been adjudicated upon by the Consolidation Officer on 28.8.2002. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to disclose the true facts before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings at the time of preferring the revision petition. The petitioner had the opportunity, as - 4 - noticed by Director, Consolidation of Holdings that the land from Khasra No.1705 was allotted to him. He knew the exact status of land since the consolidation took place in the year 1985-86 and settlement took place in the area in the year 1995-97. Mr. Ajay Sharma has also relied upon Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6, i.e. field book Bandobast Jadid Sani and of Istemal. The Consolidation Officer had visited the spot after the case was remanded back to him on 17.5.2002. The spot was inspected in presence of the parties. It is evident from the order dated 28.8.2002 that it is a consent order for all intents and purposes. Once the parties had agreed before the Consolidation Officer, they cannot be permitted to turn around by changing their stand. The consolidation proceedings must come to an end expeditiously and the parties must know their exact status. The petitioner had concealed material facts at the time of filing the revision and the plea put forth by Mr. Ajay Sharma that his client cannot be faulted for the same cannot be accepted. The parties must approach the Courts/quasi-judicial authorities with clean hands. There should not be any concealment of material facts. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the impugned order dated 14.7.2004 passed by the Director, Consolidations of Holdings. In view of the above discussion, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. November 3, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.