IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition 682 of 2001 (M/S) Bhartiya Gram Vikas Sansthan and others ..……… Petitioners. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar and others ……… Respondents Mr. S.K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri S.K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. List has been revised. No one appears for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 nor any counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and is being managed by a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with its bye-laws. The society required land for the purpose of erecting a building for running a school and, in this regard, the Village Consolidation Committee passed a resolution giving the land for public use to the society. Based on the said resolution, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 29th June, 1995 holding that the plot No. 73/4 would be used for public purposes. It transpires that the respondents filed a belated appeal No. 1661 against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29th June, 1995. It is alleged that no application was made for condoning the delay in filing the appeal nor was any explanation was given for the delay. It transpires that 10th April, 1997 was fixed for hearing but on account of the strike of the Advocates, the case could not be taken up and, 17th April, 1997 was fixed as the 2 next date. It transpires that the petitioners did not appear on 17th April and, accordingly, the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal ex-parte and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29th June, 1995. When the petitioners came to know about the said order, a restoration application was filed which was allowed by an order dated 15/05/1997 and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17/04/1997 was recalled. The appeal was accordingly restored to its original number. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 being aggrieved filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed by an order dated 31/05/2000. The petitioners, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Brief Holder, the Court finds that sufficient cause had been made out by the petitioners for non appearance before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and that the Settlement Officer Consolidation was justified in recalling its order dated 17th April, 1997 and had directed the appeal to be heard on merits. In my opinion, the Deputy Director Consolidation was not justified in allowing the revision. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st May, 2000 is set aside. The Court directs the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar to decide the appeal of the respondent No.2 on merits after hearing the parties. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 02.08.2010 Shiv