IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. : 482 of 2007 Date of decision : 2.4.2008 Man Singh …Petitioner. Versus Niku and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. S.D.Gill, Advocate. For the respondent No.1 : Ms. Bindya Sharma, Advocate For the respondent No.2 : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order of the Director (Consolidation) dated 9.1.2007 whereby he has dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner. The consolidation proceedings took place in Tikka Pandehar in the year 1997. The estate was repartitioned and the consolidation scheme was sanctioned in the year 1997. Khasra No. 111 old (new Khasra No. 27) was allotted to the respondent in such consolidation proceedings and the same was reflected therein by making the correction in the revenue record as is evident in the Jamabandi for the year 1998-99. The petitioner did not rake-up the matter till year 2006 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. when in the month of January he alongwith other filed a petition claiming that the Khasra No. 27 (new) is in his possession and there is a well on the same. According to the petitioners, they only came to know about the irregularity in the year 2005. The Director (Consolidation) after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that Khasra No. 111 was only a small piece of land and it could not be divided between all the brothers, and therefore, the same was given to one brother, i.e. the private respondent. We find no error in the order of Director (Consolidation). We are also of the view that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was highly belated. In the revision petition except for making a casual averment that the petitioner came to know about the factum of the order in November, 2005, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was not aware about the consolidation order whereby the Khasra No. 27 had been allotted to the private respondent. Even according to the petitioner consolidation proceedings had taken place. There is no allegation that no notice was served upon them under the consolidation proceedings. The holdings of the petitioners–estate holders were repartitioned. The petitioner has taken benefit under the consolidation proceedings and taken possession of the land allotted to him. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to state that he was not aware of the repartition in respect of Khasra No. 27. We find no error in the order passed by Director (Consolidation). The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta), J. 2nd April, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), J. ™