IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2154 of 2001 (Old No.30879 of 1998) Siddiq and another ……………. Petitioners Versus Assistant Director of consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, Camp Haridwar at Roorkee and others. ………….. Respondents ……………. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Date: July 31, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31.01.1998 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation Hardwar at Roorkee in appeal and dated 07.08.1998 passed by revisional court in Revision No. 1061 of 1998. 2. The dispute relates between the parties No. 244 which was recorded during basic years in the name of Siddiq & Hamid Sons of Sadhu and Fayyaz Hasan son of Bashir. In a proceeding initiated under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation Act, 1953 the Consolidation Officer granted 5/6 share to the petitioners and 1/6 share to the opposite party No. 3 on 05.08.1995. Against the said order, the Opp. party (respondent No.3. herein) filed appeal before the Settlement officer Consolidation, who allowed the appeal on 31.01.1998 and granted 1/3 share each to the petitioners and the respondent No. 3. The Settlement Officer recorded finding that the preliminary decree has become final upto the stage of Board of Revenue and now only final decree has to be passed in respect of the Kura. The order passed by the Board of Revenue has not been challenged by any of the party. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation by filing a revision which was also dismissed. The Assistant Director Consolidation observed that the consolidation Officer committed error in not taking into account that the dispute has been adjudicated by Board of Revenue and it has become final. The revisional court also affirmed the order of appellate court. 3. I have perused the impugned orders. Since it has been recorded by both the courts below that the dispute has been adjudicated by Board of Revenue and the decree has become final. I find no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the appellate court as well as revisional court. The matter is concluded by finding of fact. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 31.7.2008 P. Singh