IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 284 of 2005 Sanjay Kumar and another … Petitioners. Vs. Up Sanchalak Consolidation/ Additional Collector Haridwar and four others. …Respondents Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri R. C. Arya, Brief Holder of the State for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri S. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Date November 11, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 22-2-2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar (for short the D.D.C) (copy Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition), the order dated 29-1-2004, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar (for short the S.O.C.) (copy Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and the order dated 23-5-2003, passed by Consolidation Officer Roorkee (copy Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, if brief, are that the petitioners filed objections under Section 20(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) before the Consolidation Officer Roorkee (copy Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) wherein the petitioners made a request to allot the Chak to them adjoining to the Chak (plot no. 375) of their father in village Amkhera, Pargana Manglore, Tahsil Roorkee. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the petitioners rejected the objection of the petitioners by his order dated 23-5-2003 on the ground that the petitioners had purchased the land during the consolidation proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order passed by Consolidation Officer, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the S.O.C. under Section 21(2) of the Act. The appeal was partly allowed and the valuation of plot no. 182 was fixed at 40 paise instead on 30 paise and Chak were proposed adjoining to the Chak of their father (Chak No. 375). So far as plot no. 241 is concerned, which was also purchased by the petitioners, exchange rate was fixed 40 paise and their Chak was also proposed on their original holding i.e. plot No. 241 itself. The appeal was allowed regarding plot no. 241. The grievance of the petitioners has been redressed. Even though, the petitioners have preferred the revision before the D.D.C. The learned D.D.C., after hearing both the parties, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground that the grievance of the petitioners has already been redressed by the S.O.C. I have also perused the averments made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and have gone through the impugned orders. It is not disputed that the petitioners have themselves purchased the land during the consolidation proceedings. The S.O.C. has adjusted the valuation of the land as per share of the petitioners on their original holding. The S.O.C. has amended the exchange rate @ 40 paise instead of 30 paise as prayed for by the petitioners in appeal. The prayer of the petitioners regarding allotment of Chak adjoining to the Chak of their father, Chakdar No. 375 was considered and plot no. 182 was proposed after raising the exchange rate from 30 paise to 40 paise. The petitioners have also been allotted Chak on their original holding plot no. 241 as prayed for. The learned D.D.C. himself made a spot inspection and found that their Chak have been allotted adjoining to the Chak of their father. It was found that the valuation of plots was rightly fixed and the Chak which were proposed have been proposed on their original holding as well as adjoining to the Chak of their father, as has been demanded at the S.O.C. stage. As per provision of Section 19 of the Act, Chak may be amended by the authority concerned on their original holding as far as possible. I find that the grievance of the petitioners has already been suitably redressed by the S.O.C. In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, I find no perversity in the orders impugned passed by the S.O.C. as well as the D.D.C. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to the dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. The order dated 29-1-2004 passed by the S.O.C. in appeal is maintained. Interim order dated 1-8-2005 is vacated. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP