COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 5588/2001 Narendra Singh & Others …….Petitioners Versus District Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Collector, Haridwar & Others …….Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 3. Sri R.K. Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.S. Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4. 4th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, whereby the revision preferred by petitioners under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the order dated 17.11.2000 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been rejected. 2. The dispute relates to the area of the land comprised in khasra no. 425 and 426. Khasra no. 426 belongs to the petitioners. The bandobast entry shows its area as 1.797 hectares, whereas during resurvey made for verification of basic year entries, the area of the land comprised to khasra no. 426 was found to be 1.937 hectares. The area of khasra no. 425, which belongs to Bhagat Singh/respondent no. 4, was directed to be recorded as 1.808 hectares in place of previous survey 2 showing its area as 1.718 hectares. Petitioners filed objections. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.2.1997 decided the objections and directed to enter the area of plot no. 426 as 1.906 hectares and the area of plot no. 425 as 1.808 hectares. 3. Against the aforesaid order dated 17.2.1997, respondent no. 4 preferred a time barred appeal on 12.7.2000. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 17.11.2000 and directed to record the area of plot no. 425 and 426 as 1.861 hectares and 1.871 hectares respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dated 17.11.2000, petitioners preferred a revision, which was rejected by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 23.8.2001. Hence, the petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. Respondent no. 4 had neither filed any objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer nor before the Consolidation Officer in respect of khasra no. 425 and 426. But thereafter appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 was allowed by the appellate authority. Moreover, both the courts below have not considered the survey report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and erred in doing so. Preference should have been given to the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and then the Consolidator. 3 7. In view of my above discussion and conclusion, the writ petition succeeds. Impugned orders dated 17.11.2000 and 23.8.2001 passed by the appellate court and the revisional court are hereby set aside. The order dated 17.2.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer is restored. The authorities are directed to record the area accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 4.8.2008 Prabodh