IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 889 of 2001 (Old CMWP No. 9803 of 1999. Irshad son of Mustaq and another. … Petitioners. Vs. D.D.C. Muzaffar Nagar Camp Haridwar at Roorkee and nine others. …Respondents. Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State-respondent no. 1 and2. Date November 06, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. There is no representation on behalf of the private respondents despite service. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 14-1-1999 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition). The impugned order dated 14-1-1999 was passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar Camp Haridwar in Revision Nos. 210 Muslim Vs. Mustaq and others and 211 Murtaza Husain Vs. Mustaq and others, on the ground that the parties never entered into compromise. A perusal of record shows that the father of the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation against the order dated 26.02.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is against law because the objection of the appellant was not considered. I have perused the order passed in appeal (copy Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and the order passed by the revisional court in Revision Nos. 210 and 211. The revision No. 210 was filed by one Muslim and the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 14- 1-1999 and the Revision No. 211, was filed by Murtaza Hussain. The revisional court made a sopt inspection and it was found that plot no. 61/9 is high level land (Teelanuma) and the same plot no. 61/9 was excluded and the land has been included in the Bachat land of Gaon Sabha and the Chak Nos. 36 and 37 of the petitioners were also amended as has been demanded. Having gone through the record, I find no perversity in the impugned order because the high level land (Teelauma) was excluded by the revisional court and in lieu of that land plot nos. 9/1, 9/2 and 11/2 were given at Assistant Consolidation Officer stage to the petitioners. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 26-3-1999 is vacated. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP