IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 967 of 2008 (M/S) Balwant S/o Shri Kalu, R/o Village Aurangjebpur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ..........Petitioners Versus Jaspal Singh Chawala S/o Shri K.S. Singh Chawala, R/o C-4, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi and two others. ..........Respondents Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief for Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondents despite service. Date: - November 24, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief for Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 23.12.2002 and 30.10.2008 passed by the Deputy Direction of Consolidation/Additional Collector Haridwar, contained as annexure nos. 5 and 9 to this writ petition whereby the revisional court, i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision, vide order dated 23.12.2002 on the basis of the forged compromise and the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar Camp, Roorkee, vide order dated 30.1.2008, dismissed the recall application. Brief facts in short are that according to the petitioner the appellate court Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar, Roorkee has allowed the appeal (Appeal No. 1137) of the respondent no. 1, vide order dated 26.5.2001, on the basis of the compromise with Balwant Singh, Chak holder of chak no. 392. The petitioner did not file any revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 26.5.2001 passed in appeal but some other person in the name of petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and filed a forged compromise. The averments have been made to this effect in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition. This Court on 12.6.2008 issued notice to the respondents and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Despite of sufficient service, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have not come forward to rebut the contention of the petitioner. The averments of the petitioner have been verified by filing the affidavit in the Court. Since the averments made in the writ petition are not rebutted by the respondents, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Direction of Consolidation dated 23.12.2002 and 30.1.2008 whereby the recall application was rejected, are liable to be quashed. The order passed by the appellate court is liable to be maintained. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.12.2002 and order dated 30.1.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are set aside and order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is maintained. Interim orders dated 12.6.2008 passed by this court stands vacated. All the pending applications stands disposed of accordingly. Dated: 24.11.2008 (B.S. Verma, J.) RMY