IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 113 of 2004 Pushpendra @ Upendra S/o Shri Rakam Singh, R/o Village Bhauri, Pargana and Tehsil – Roorkee, District Haridwar. ........Petitioner. Vs. Zila Up Sanchalak Chakbandi/Collector Haridwar, District Haridwar and another. .....Respondents. Sri Tapan Singh, holding brief for Sri Lokpal Singh., leanred counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent no. 2 despite sufficient service. Date November 12, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate, holding brief for Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite sufficient service. This writ petition has been preferred to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19-11-2003 contained Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.1-District Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar (for Short the D.D.C.). According to the petitioner, the petitioner was allotted Chak no. 40 and the Chaks were also allotted to the respondent no. 2 and other tenure holders of village Bhauri Mustkaham by the Consolidation Officer Roorkee vide order dated 25-7-1994. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act was preferred by the respondent no. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 24-10-2001 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar Camp Roorkee, on the ground that no objections were filed regarding the increasing or decreasing the area or to amend the map. Further, aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 2 has preferred a revision before the D.D.C. The revision was allowed vide order dated 19-11-2003 and direction was given to the Consolidation Officer to reduce the area to Chak to the extent of 0.004 hectare from the land of Chakdar no. 48, 0.025 hectare from Chak no. 40 of Puspendra, 0.011 hectare from Chak No. 83 of Jai Chand, 0.162 hectare of Chak No. 322 of Sadhu Ram and 0.055 hectare of Shahid Hasan, Chakdar No. 317. The writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the area of Chakdar No. 40 of the petitioner was also reduced to the extent of 0.025 hectare, while the respondent no. 2 did not make the petitioner as party to the revision. Before passing the final order to reduce the area of the petitioner, the revisional court ought to have heard the petitioner. By a perusal of the impugned order dated 19-11-2003 passed by the D.D.C. it reveals that although both the parties were heard in the revision, while the petitioner was not made a party before the revisional court, therefore, there is no question of hearing the petitioner in the revision. In such circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed on this ground alone. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19-11-2003 passed by the D.D.C. is set aside only to the extent it relates to decreasing of the area of petitioner Chak No. 40. The D.D.C. is directed to pass appropriate order on merits after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 in the matter. Rest of the order is maintained. Interim order dated 27-2-2004 stands vacated. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP