COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1186/2001 (Old No. 3330/2000) Natha Singh & Others ……..Petitioners Versus State of U.P. Though S.D.M. Roorkee, Haridwar And Others …….Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 3. 3 rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Despite service, none appeared for the respondent no. 4 i.e. Gaon Sabha, Village Nanheda Anantpur, Tehsil Roorkee, Haridwar. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Sharad Sharma submitted that during the review proceedings pending before the Board of Revenue, the notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued. Therefore, the review proceeding stood abated and fresh proceedings under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were pending. During the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, S.D.M., Roorkee is insisting for mutation on the basis of the order dated 28.8.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue in the second appeal, which stood abated on 7.4.1993, when the review was disposed of. 3. Since the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are pending, therefore, the finality cannot be attached to the order dated 28.8.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue in the second appeal, which was subject matter of the review and during the pendency of the review, the proceedings stood abated. Thus, the impugned order passed by the S.D.M., Roorkee is hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 3.7.2008 Prabodh 2