IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.185 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.4.2008 Daulat Ram and others ……….. Appellants. Vs. Director Consolidation and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants was owner in possession of 2 Kanals 7 Malras area, bearing old Khasra No.560. On consolidation, the entire area was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.2 to 11. Predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was aggrieved by that allotment. He filed a petition before the Settlement Officer, who passed an order dated 15.5.1985. According to the said order, the parties agreed and consented to the change in the allotment order to the extent that the entire area of old Khasra No.560, i.e. 2 Kanals 7 Marlas, which formed part of new Khasra No.437, be allotted to the predecessor of the present appellants. The area that was ordered to be so allotted was shown by min number 437/2, because the total area of new Khasra No.437 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… was more than the aforesaid area. That order was challenged by filing appeal before the Additional Director of Consolidation. The appeal was dismissed. Further appeal was carried to the Director Consolidation, who allowed the same accepting the plea of the predecessor of the respondents that there was no agreement or consent given by him for the allotment of the aforesaid 2 Kanals 7 Marlas area, being Khasra No.437/2, to the predecessor of the appellants. Matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer for deciding the same afresh, on merits. Settlement Officer then passed ordered dated 18.9.1995, based on spot inspection carried out by him on 29.5.1995, dismissing the application of the appellants’ predecessor, for allotment of the area of old Khasra No.560, to him. Appeals carried by the appellants to the higher authorities upto the level of Director, Consolidation, were dismissed. 3. Appellants then filed writ petition challenging the order of the Settlement Officer and the superior consolidation authorities. Writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Now the appellants have filed the present LPA. 4. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the learned single Judge did not send for the original record of the proceedings of the application that was submitted to the Settlement Officer, to ascertain whether there was any writing with regard to the agreement/consent of the parties referred to in the initial order of Settlement Officer dated 15.5.1985. 5. We have considered the submission. It is too late in the day for the appellants to claim that there was some record pertaining to the alleged agreement/consent for passing of the said order of 1985. Had there been any such record, the appellants would have made a mention thereof in the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge as also in the grounds of the present appeal. Moreover, when the order of 1985 had been set aside only on the count that there was no …3… record of any agreement/consent, between the parties for the allotment of Khasra No.560 to the predecessor of the appellants, it was all the more necessary for the appellants to have procured the copies of such record, had it been in existence, and to submit the same along with the writ petition. Their failure to do so is indicative that no such record exists. 6. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. CMP No.1113 of 2007 No order in view of the dismissal of the main matter. (Surjit Singh), J. April 28, 2008(ss) ( V.K. Ahuja), J.