IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2291 of 2001 Ilam Chand son of Banwari. … Petitioner. Versus Zila Upsanchalayak Chak Bandi/Collector Hardwar and two others … Respondents. Mr.Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, Central Govt. Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Date June 16, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Restoration Application No. 480 of 2010) (Delay Condonation Application No. 4946 of 2010) Heard. This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 31-7-2008 passed by this Court. The petitoner has moved restoration application to recall the dismissal order dated 31-7-2008. Since there has been delay in filing the restoration application, the petitioner has also moved a delay condonation, which is accompanied by an affidavit. Grounds are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed. In the interest of justice, the restoration application is allowed. The order dated 31-7-2008 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-5- 2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector Haridwar (for short the D.D.C.). Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was allotted two Chaks at Consolidation Officer stage by order dated 3-2-1999. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar (for short SOC) and prayed that his 2 Chak of plot no. 396/1 be cancelled and to allot one Chak on the holding, plot no. 264/1 and others. The learned SOC, after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal and amended the Chak of the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 2 and 3 by his order dated 7-7-2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 2 and 3 preferred revision Nos. 282 of 2000 Mange Ram Vs. Ilam Chand and others and 283 of 2000 Mange Ram Vs. Ilam Chand and others. Both these revisions were filed through power of attorney holder on behalf of Smt. Shakuntala Devi on the ground that the original holding of respondent nos. 2 and 3 Mam Chand and Smt. Shakuntala Devi i.e. plot no. 424 was allotted to Sri Ilam Chand petitioner and the original holding of Sri Ilam Chand has been allotted in their Chak. The holding of petitioner Ilam Chand, according to them, is of higher exchange rate of 90 paise and the exchange rate of their holding plot no. 424 is 80 paise. The learned D.D.C. after hearing both the parties while allowing the revisions by order dated 30-5-2001has amended the Chak of the revisionist and plot no. 396/1 was allotted in the Chak of the petitioner along with some area of plot no. 423 and 424, which gave rise to the present writ petition. In reply, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the Chak of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were allotted by the D.D.C. as has been allotted to them at the Consolidation Officer stage and their original holding pertaining to plot no. 424 was again given in their Chak and plot no. 396/1, which is original holding of the petitioner was given to them, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Further it was submitted that lesser area of their original holding has been allotted to the petitioner at D.D.C. stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Lok Pal Singh has vehemently argued that without setting aside the finding of the SOC, the learned D.D.C. has set aside the order 3 passed by the SOC and allotted Chak to respondent nos. 2 and 3 and a part of original holding of the petitioner was allotted to them. So far as plot no. 396/1 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it may be given to the petitioner but the other numbers have wrongly been allotted to respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are husband and wife, therefore, their Chak should be allotted at the same place. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, in reply thereto has submitted that Shakuntala Devi was having the original holding including Chak No. 424 and her husband has also purchased the land in plot no. 424, therefore, there was no occasion to disturb the Chak given at Consoliation stage by the SOC. Even if this fact be ignored that they are husband and wife, even then they are entitled to get the Chak on their original holding. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has filed certified copy of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The same be taken on record. At the Consolidation Officer stage, the petitioner Ilam Chand was allotted plot no. 396/1 area 0.379, plot no. 423 area 0.066 and plot no. 424 area 0.141. Sri Mam Chand, respondent no. 2 was allotted plot no. 263 area 0.048, 264/2 area 0.053 and 424 area 0.472. According to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the original holding of Sri Mam Chand was plot no. 424 area 3.526, plot no. 264/2 area 0.168. Only the area of plot no. 263 i.e. 0.048 was included to make the Chak rectangular. According to the respondents, the learned D.D.C. has allotted the same Chak as had been given at Consolidation Officer stage to the respondent no.2. So far as the Chak of respondent no. 3 Shakuntala Devi is concerned, at Consolidation Officer stage, she was allotted Chak No. 264/2, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273/1 and 424. Plot no. 264/2 and 424 were her original holding with total area of 0.576 including the plot no. 264/2 area 0.078 and plot no. 424 area 0.293. Learned SOC has amended the Chak in appeal on her original holding and allotted to her plot no. 424 area 0.052 and 424 4 area 0.462, total 0.514. The learned DDC has allotted the Chak again as that of Consolidation Officer stage. I have perused the order passed by Consolidation Officer, the SOC and the D.D.C. as well as CH 23 filed by the parties in this writ petition. From a perusal of record it is obvious that the Chak of the tenure holder has been allotted by the Consolidation Officer and D.D.C. on the place where the tenure holder was having largest part of his holdings, as has been provided in sub-clause (e) of sub- section (2) of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In consolidation proceeding, to make the Chak rectangular, some area is necessarily be given to other tenure holder, otherwise the shape of the old plot cannot be made rectangular. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the SOC was not set aside by the DDC is concerned, the argument is not tenable for the simple reason that the D.D.C. has given reasons to set aside the order of SOC and if it is not mentioned that the findings are set aside, the same makes no difference. I find no error of law in the impugned judgment since all the tenure holders have been allotted largest holding on their original holdings. For the reasons and discussion above, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 23-6-2001 is vacated. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP