Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.05 of 2002 Maqsood Ali and another. ………. Petitioners Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar, Camp at Roorkee and others. ……….. Respondents ……………….. Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent Nos.1 to 3. Date: Aug. 26,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 15.10.1999 passed by respondent No.1 Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.44/132, contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. 2. During the consolidation proceeding, chak No.171 has been allotted to the petitioner No.1, chak No.172 to the petitioner No.2 and chak No.126 to the respondent Nos. 4 to 10 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is alleged that Hawai chaks were allotted to the petitioners by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the holding of the value of 100 paise against the consolidation scheme. On the objection filed by the father of respondent Nos. 11 to 13, the Consolidation Officer has disturbed the chak Nos. 171 & 172 which were allotted to the petitioners on 06.05.1994. Against the said order, the petitioners have preferred separate appeals 2 which were allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by common order dated 11.06.1996 and chaks were allotted to the petitioners on their original holding at Gata No.281/1,281/2 & 283. 3. The respondent Nos. 4 to 10 have filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 11.6.1996 passed by appellate authority which was allowed vide order dated 15.10.1999. Again the chaks of petitioners have been disturbed and Hawai chaks were allotted to the petitioners on the land of the value of 100 paise in place of chaks allotted to the petitioners by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come up with this petition. 4. I have heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the chaks were allotted to the petitioners measuring 0.4359 hectare each in place of their original holding measuring 0.6030 hectare by the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation decreasing the petitioners’ land more than 25 per cent against the consolidation scheme provided under Sec. 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and land of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 was increased. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded finding that after scrutiny of revenue records it was found that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has rightly 3 made the allotment of chaks to the petitioners and the Settlement Officer, consolidation committed mistake in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The revisional court has recorded the said finding after deep scrutiny of the revenue records and hearing of the parties at length. I find no illegality or perversity in the revisional order. The order requires no interference by this Court. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. The order passed by Consolidation Officer and the order dated 15.10.1999 passed in the revision are affirmed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.08.2008 P.Singh