IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 903 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 4404 of 2000) Yaqoob ……………….Petitioner. Versus Assistant Director of Consolidation and others. ………………Respondents. 25 th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th May, 1999 passed by the respondent no. 1 (contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition). 2. Brief facts of the case are that under the proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holding Act in Mauja Narainpur and Tikola in Case No. 2199 and 2180 (Old) New No. 5725 and 5726, the petitioner was recorded as land holder in the Akar Patra-5 and name of the petitioner was mentioned for the last more than 20 years. A WILL was executed in favour of the petitioner with regard to the land in dispute by one Allahdia S/o Imdad Khan on 15.2.1970 as he had no issue. Thereafter, respondents no. 7 to 10 filed an impleadment application on 15.3.1999 stating therein that they are necessary partly as one WILL was also executed in their favour on 15.6.1971. Petitioner filed his objection on the impleadment application moved by the respondents no.7 to 10 stating therein that no WILL has been executed on 15.6.1971, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to file impleadment application as they were neither necessary party, nor they have any locus – standi in the case. After hearing both the parties, the Consolidation Officer rejected the impleadment application dated 15.3.1999 vide order dated 8th April, 1999 on the ground that the impleadment application was moved by the respondents after 25-26 years and has also accepted the version of the petitioner. 3. Against the order dated 8.4.1999, the respondents no. 7 to 10 filed revision before the respondent no. 1 / Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar Camp at Roorkee, being Revision No. 228/1999 Irfan Vs. Ayub and others. The Assistant Director of Consolidation allowd the revision on 7.5.1999 and fixed the case before the C.O. and now the case is pending before the C.O. 4. Bare perusal of the order dated 7.5.1999 shows that the petition has been filed against an order, whereby the revision has been allowed and the matter has been sent back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same on merits. 5. Since, writ petition has been filed against a remand order, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 6. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathour