THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 105 of 2006 Smt. Raisan W/O late Jameel, R/O village Nagla Imrti, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner Versus 1. Sanchalak Chakbandi, Uttaranchal Dehradun, 2. D.D.C. Haridwar/District Magistrate Haridwar, 3. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Roorkee, District Haridwar. 4. Mubarik S/O Ali Hasan, 5. Jabbar S/O Ismile, 6. Saeed S/O Ismile, 7. Yaseen S/O Jahura, 8. Yameen S/O Jahura, Respondent No. 4 ot 8 R/O Village Nagla Imrti, Pargana and, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar. … Respondents Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Atul Bansal holding brief of learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 to 3. Sri Lokpal Singh, Adv., for respondent nos. 7 & 8. Dated February 15, 2006. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Bansal, Advocate, holding brief of learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31-12- 2005 passed by the respondent no.1 by which the Appeal Nos. 389A/2003-04, 397/2003-04 and 400/2003-04 were transferred for hearing and disposal to the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Udham Singh Nagar from Hardwar in compliance of this Court’s order dated 18-11-2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 331 of 2005, Mubarik and others Vs. Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner/Upper Sanchalak Chakbandi, Uttaranchal and others. 2 On 18-11-2005, the said Writ Petition was finally disposed of by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C.Verma and the following directions were given:- “The petitioners have made several allegations against the Settlement Officer Consolidation who is hearing the appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case is allowed. The appeals shall be decided by some other Settlement Officer Consolidation and if some other Settlement Officer Consolidation is not available in the District concerned, the District Magistrate concerned shall arrange other settlement officer consolidation from the nearby districts who shall decide the dispute within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till the dispute is not decided by some other Settlement officer Consolidation, both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the land in dispute.” It reveals from the said order that it was directed to the District Magistrate concerned shall arrange some other Settlement Officer Consolidation from the nearby district if some other Settlement officer Consolidation is not available in the district concerned. The respondent No.1 by the impugned order dated 31.12.2005 transferred the appeals to the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Udham Singh Nagar. The impugned order is not in compliance of this Court’s Order dated 18-11-2005. This Court directed the Collector to arrange other Settlement Officer Consolidation from another district for a camp court if any Settlement officer Consolidation is not available in the district concerned. Hence the order dated 31.12.2005 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside and the respondent no.1 Director Consolidation Uttaranchal, Dehradun, is directed to appoint some Settlement Officer Consolidation within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order for disposal of the said appeals, who shall hold camp court in district Haridwar. It is further directed that in compliance of the earlier order of this Court, the concerned Settlement Officer Consolidation shall decide the dispute within a period of four 3 month from the date from which he is appointed to decide the appeals by the respondent no.1. With the said observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S. Verma, J.) 15.02.2006. RCP