Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.143 of 2003 Jahan Mohammad ………. Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar and others. ……… Respondents ……………….. Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Restoration Application No.984 of 2008 has been moved by the applicant/petitioner to recall the order dated 23.07.2008, by which the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and restore the writ petition to its original number. 2. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application. The grounds mentioned are sufficient to allow the application. Hence the restoration application is allowed. Order dated 23.07.2008 is recalled and the petition is restored to its original number. 3. Heard Sri A.K.Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lokpal Singh learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on merit of the case. 4. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2003 passed by respondent 2 No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation /Additional Collector, Haridwar in Revision No.484 of 2001-2002. 5. The respondent No.2-Nasrat preferred a revision against the order dated 01.10.2001 and 08.01.2002 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation by which he has allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by Consolidation Officer. The revisional court allowed the revision in respect of Chak No. 383 and amended the table giving the reasons in his judgment. Aggrieved by the said order of revisional court, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land of the petitioner has been less and area of Nasrat/respondent has been increased. The Deputy Director Consolidation after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence recorded his finding and allowed the revision in respect of Chak No. 383. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The parties do not adversely effect from the impugned order. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.08.2008 P.singh