IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.383 of 2001 (M/S) Jagdish Prasad .…Petitioners Versus Upper Ziladhikari & others … Respondents Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. V.D. Bisen, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioners and respondent no.3 are real brothers, both were cosharers in plot no.128 and by way of private partition share of the petitioners came in northern side whereas share of respondent no.3 came in the southern side. During consolidation proceedings Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted the chak. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 filed objection in the name of petitioner by forging his signature. Objection filed by the respondent no.3 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 26.11.1995. Thereafter petitioner filed objection under section 20 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act alongwith application under section 5 of Limitation Act before the Consolidation Officer against the chak allotted to him by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On 21.12.1996 the Consolidation 2 Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that earlier objection allegedly filed by the petitioner being Case No.343 had already been disposed of. Therefore, the petitioner filed application alongwith the affidavit for recalling both the order dated 26.11.1995 and 21.12.1996 on which the Consolidation Officer passed an order for putting up the application of the petitioner alongwith record of Case No.343 on 20.02.1997. Thereafter on 22.02.1997 the Consolidation Officer rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision under section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On 07.08.1998 the Deputy Director rejected the revision of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability and directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Court. In the said revision the Deputy Director Consolidation gave a finding that the court below had not taken proper decision on the application of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition has been filed. Since there is clear cut finding to the effect that the Consolidation Officer has not taken proper decision on the applications of the petitioner, this Court does not see that any useful purpose will be solved by sending matter to the Settlement Officer as finding recorded by the Deputy Director Consolidation Officer will come in his way in deciding the case independently. 3 At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties requested the Court that the case may be sent back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the application of the petitioners afresh without being influenced by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. This prayer is allowed. Orders dated 21.12.1996, 22.02.1997 and 07.08.1998 are quashed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the application/objection of the petitioners afresh after calling the record of Case No.343 and after giving opportunity to both the parties within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The writ petition is disposed of. (V.K.Bist. J,) 15.03.2010 Arti 4 5 6 7