1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 177 of 2001-C Date of decision: 30.12.2011. Gurdass Ram, son of Sh. Prem Chand, Res. of Vill. Dussara, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una (H.P.) Petitioner Versus 1. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, H.P., SHIMLA, H.P. 2a. Daulat Ram} All sons of 2b. Dharam Pal} Kishan Chand. 2c. Satpal } 3. Raj Kumar, s/o Shri Rattan Chand 4. Surinder Kumar, s/o Shri Rattan Chand 5. Des Raj, son of Shri Bhagat Ram 6. Sumesh Kumar, son of Shri Parkash Chand 7. Des Raj, son of Sh. Bhagata 8. Kishan Dev, son of Shri Amin Chand 9. Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Mangat Ram 10. Kamal Dev, son of Shri Mangar Ram 11. Diwan Chand, son of Shri Parmeshwari Dass 12. Subhash Chand, son of Shri Parmeshwari Dass 13. Onkar Nath, son of Shri Amar Nath 14. Shiv Nath, son of Shri Amar Nath 15. Satish Kumar, Shri Karam Chand 16. Kewal Singh, Shri Karam Chand 17. Rajinder Kumar, Shri Karam Chand 2 18. Sanjiv Kumar, Shri Karam Chand 19. Ravinder Kumar, Shri Karam Chand 20. Surinder Kumar, Shri Jagan Nath 21. Kailash Kumar, Shri Jagan Nath 22. Satish Kumar, Shri Jagan Nath 23. Mool Raj, son of Shri Raghuvir Chand 24. Sanjogta Devi, wd/o late Sh. Hari Chand 24b. Manish Kumar (Minor) S/o Late Sh. Hari Ram, through its mother Smt. Sanjogta Devi. 25. Sudershana Kumari, daughter of 26. Giatri Devi, widow of late Shri Jagan Nath. 27. Dinesh Kumar, s/o late Shri Roop Chand 28. Kishan Dev, son of Hukami Devi 29. Om Prakash, son of Hukami Devi 30. Subhash Chand, son of Hukami Devi 31. Parkasho Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi 32. Nirmla Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi 33. Shanti Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi 34. Surinderan Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi 35. Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Har Lal 36. Shyam Kumar, son of Shri Bishan Dass 37a. Shawarna Devi, wd/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar 37b. Ram Parsad, s/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar 37c. Bindra Devi, d/o late Sh. Ashok Kumar 37d. Rama Devi, d/o late Sh. Ashok Kumar 38. Ram Rakha, son of Masandu 3 39. Baldev, son of Shri Inder 40. Tarsem, son of Shri Inder 42. Onkar Chand, son of Shri Inder Respondents 2a to 42 all residents of vill. Dussara, Tehsil Amb, District Una (H.P.) Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? 1 For petitioner: Mr. Rajnish Manikatla,Advocate. For respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal., Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Surinder Singh , Judge( Oral) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash and set aside the order, dated 29.7.2007, Annexure P-3, passed by the first respondent seeking further direction to decide the revision petition, on its own merit. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1978, he had purchased 7 Marlas of land in Khasra No. 238 from one Shri Roop Chand vide a sale deed duly registered and raised the shops and house thereupon. Thereafter in the year 1980-81, the Revenue Department conducted the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 4 settlement and some new Khasra number was alloted. The petitioner had filed the civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction, which was decreed partly and he failed in appeal also, ultimately, his regular second appeal before the High Court was also dismissed. He had also agitated the matter under the Consolidation Act, but his grievance was not redressed, ultimately, he filed a revision petition under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the petitioner was unsuccessful in the civil suit upto this Court and in his RSA No. 426/98, decided on 4.6.1999 the High Court held that the petitioner had no title over the land in dispute, which was allotted in partition during the consolidation proceedings to Roop Chand aforesaid, from whom the petitioner is alleged to have purchased the land. Thus, the petitioner was not justified in approaching the Director (Consolidation) to maintain the revision petition. 3. In fact in para No.4 of the judgment passed by the High Court in the RSA aforesaid, it is clearly held that the petitioner was not 5 entitled to a decree for permanent injunction for want of title. Therefore, in view of this clear cut finding, the revision petition was rightly dismissed. As such, relief sough cannot be granted and the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Surinder Singh), Judge. December 30, 2011. (pankaj)