COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 2334/2001 Inder Singh …….Petitioner Versus Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Haridwar And Other …….Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. 22nd August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.5.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, whereby the revision preferred by Vijay Karan, respondent no. 2 against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been allowed. 2. Petitioner is the tenure holder of Gata No. 15/3 and 15/4 measure 0.15 hectares and 0.0362 hectares respectively. Chak number 337 was allotted to the petitioner on his original holding by the Consolidation Officer. Respondent no. 2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was dismissed by the order dated 28.10.1995. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, respondent no. 2 preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 30.5.2001. 2 3. It reveals from the perusal of the materials available on record that earlier the chak was allotted to the petitioner on his original holding by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. But by the impugned order, the petitioner’s chak has been disturbed. Petitioner also claims that the chak allotted to the petitioner on Gata No. 50 and 51 is situated very far from the village and is not cultivable because the soil of the said land is sandy in nature. Petitioner has also alleged that he had no knowledge about the revision preferred by the respondent no. 2 and that neither any notice was served on him nor the same was affixed on his house. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that the notice was served on the petitioner by way of affixation. But respondent no. 2 did not produce any witness before the court below to prove the report of the process server. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is settled law that the parties shall be allowed to contest on merit. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order 30.5.2001 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the dispute afresh after giving notice to all the concerned parties and after affording them the opportunity of hearing. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 22.8.2008 Prabodh