Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.942 of 2002 (Old No. 24524 of 2000) Smt.Mithlesh ………. Petitioner Versus The Deputy Director of Consolidation Bijnor, Camp Haridwar at Roorkee and others. ……… Respondents ……………….. Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No 3. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 12.05.2000 passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision No.272, contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition and also the judgment and order dated 31.12.1998 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.289, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. 2. The facts briefly stated are that in the proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed single chak to the petitioner over plot Nos. 332/1 and 333/1 area 8 Biswa 7 Biswansi of the valuation of 37.53 paise. The petitioner filed an objection claiming chak over plot No.443, 444, 445 etc. as the same are the land of commercial value as it is situated on 2 the main road of Nagla Imarti to Manglaur. The Consolidation Officer changed the chak of the petitioner but allotted chak over plot Nos. 393/2, 424/1, 424/2, 425/1 and 425/2, area 8 Biswa 5 Biswansi of the valuation of 37.53 paise. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24.01.1998 as she was given chak adjacent to the chak of her husband-Sri Dinesh Kumar. The respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was allowed by judgment, dated 31.12.1998. The petitioner was not impleaded in the said appeal and the impugned order was passed exparte against her. The respondent No.2 in its judgment discussed the case and grievance of the respondent No.3 alone and altered as many as 18 chaks in appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation shifted the chak of the petitioner over plot Nos. 425/2, 441/1, 441/2, 441/3 and 440/1 of 7 Biswa 3 Biswansi of the valuation of 37.53 paise. Aggrieved by the said order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner filed a revision claiming chak over her original holding or near to her husband’s chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by its judgment and order dated 12.05.2000 dismissed the revision of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed a reasoned order after hearing the parties concerned in the matter or chak allotment and has given 3 reasons in support thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality and infirmity in the revisional order. I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. 5. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.08.2008 P.Singh