IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITON NO. 1174 (MS) OF 2003 Rajendra ………….……..Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation/Deputy Collector, Haridwar & others. ………….Respondents. HON’BLE RAJESH TANDON J. Heard Sri Siddhartha Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Saini, counsel for the respondents. Both the parties have agreed that the Writ Petition be decided finally. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 31st August, 2002 and 11th November, 2003. Briefly stated on 2nd November, 1995, the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee passed an order in Case No. 476 of 1995 to the effect that Gata Nos. ½ Area 3-17-13 of Village Mehmoodpur , which is the property of the Gram Sabha may be deleted and the same may be recorded in the name of the petitioner as Bhoomidhar and Gata Nos. 4/2 area 4-9 standing in the name of the petitioner may be deleted and recorded in the name of Gram Sabha as well as Gata of Village Mehmoodpur bearing no. 1/2 area 3-3-7, 1/3 area 2-4-6 and 9/7 area 1-6-7 total area 6-14-0 property in the name of the Gram Sabha be directed to be deleted and recorded in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner’s original holding’s Gata No. 100 situated in the Village Mehmoodpur may be deleted and recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the Court of respondent no. 2 praying for quashing of the said order. The said appeal was registered an Appeal No. 1103 of 1996. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid appeal was not maintainable in as much as it was not properly verified and signed by the person by whom the appeal has to be field and as such he filed an application for dismissal of the appeal on 8th of May, 2002. On the said application an order was passed on 31st August, 2002 to the following effect:- **vkt irzkoyh is”k gqbZ i{kksa dks iqdkj djk;h x;h gSA izfri{k dSIVu fou; dqekj HkkfV;k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk irz fnukad 8/5/2002 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS]] D;ksafd fjosU;w CkksMZ 1998 iSjk uEcj 3 esa Li’V mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd {kqC/k O;fDr dkSu xzke lHkk dh lEifRr xzke lHkk ds fgr dks lqj{kk gsrq pkjktksbZ djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gj xkao lHkk fuoklh dks gSA bl izdkj mDr izkFkZuk irz fujk/kkj gSA vr% irzkoyh okLrs cgl xq.k nks’k fnukad 6-9-2002 dks is”k gksA** In the mean time the petitioner has approached to the Revision Authority under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holding Act by filing a Revision. The Revisional Authority has sent back the matter to the appellate authority with the following directions:- “mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fuxjkuh cyghu gksus ij iks’k.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA voj U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k okil fd;s tk;sA voj U;k;ky; l0 cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh dks funZsf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og okn dk fuLrkj.k mHk; i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk volj nsdj nks lIrkg ds vUnj xq.k nks’k ds vk/kkj ij djuk lqfuf”pr djsaA Ikrzkoyh ckn vko”;d dk;Zokgh nf[ky nQrj dh tkosA” I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Revisional Court while sending the matter back to the Appellate Authority except with the modification that the appellate authority shall also inquire as to whether the appeal was legally maintainable or not. Liberty is given to both the parties to argue with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. However, if there is any defect in the appeal, liberty is given to rectify the mistake, if any. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner shall continue in possession. (Rajesh Tandon J.) 04.10.2004 P.S. Rathour