IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. : 1004 of 2007 Reserved on : 18.3.2008 Date of decision : 3.4.2008 Saraswati Devi and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajnish K.Lal, vice Shri K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that village Phalwara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra came under consolidation under the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. The consolidation scheme was prepared. The objections of the predecessor-in- interest of respondent No.4 were decided by the Consolidation Officer on 21.12.1989. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4 Shri Thakur Singh filed an appeal against the order dated 21.12.1989 before the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer dismissed the appeal on 14.3.1993. The respondent No.4 filed a 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. revision under Section 54 of the Consolidation Act before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings. It appears from the pleadings that the Director (Consolidation of Holdings) ordered the Consolidation Officer on 16.10.2006 to visit the spot and prepare the report. The director on the basis of the report furnished by the Consolidation Officer passed the order on 6.3.2007. Mr. Rajnish K.Lal, Advocate, vice Mr. K.D.Sood, had strenuously argued that the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that his client were not permitted to file objections against the report furnished by the Consolidation Officer pursuant to order dated 16.10.2006 by the Director. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General had supported the order dated 6.3.2007. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The Consolidation Proceedings commenced in village Phalwara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. It appears from the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 21.12.1989 that the objection raised by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4 were rejected. The Settlement Officer rejected the appeal preferred against the order dated 21.12.1989. The appeal was rejected in default for want of prosecution. The respondent No. 4 had approached the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. The Director had called for the report from the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.10.2006. It is evident from the report furnished by the Consolidation Officer that the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 were present on the spot. The revenue record and the record of the consolidation was produced by the Kanungo and Patwari. The spot was also inspected by the Consolidation Officer in presence of the parties. He had heard both the parties and they were apprised of the revenue records. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the revenue record as well as on the basis of the consolidation record suggested three alternatives in his report. However, he had strongly recommended first alternative to be more reasonable because after carving out of the path both the parties could visit their Abadies. The Consolidation Officer had also prepared Aks Sajra Latha to identify Abadi of both the parties alongwith their adjoining lands. He has also taken note of the objection with respect to Khasra No. 805. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on the basis of the report furnished by the Consolidation Officer accepted the revision on 6.3.2007 and had made the modification with a direction to the Field Agency to prepare the revised Tatima. It is clear from the facts enumerated here-in-above that the Consolidation Officer had inspected the spot in the presence of the parties. The Revenue as well as Consolidation Records were seen and the parties were apprised of the same. He had made suggestions in his report, which were considered by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings on 6.3.2007 while accepting the revision. The report of the Consolidation Officer, which is on record is exhaustive. The petitioners have not raised any objection against the same before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. If they were in any manner aggrieved by the report filed by the Consolidation Officer they could raise objections before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. It appears that the parties had accepted the report and at this stage they cannot be permitted to assail the same only on the ground that they had not been permitted to file objection against the report. Mr. Lal had also faintly argued that the respondent No. 4 should have filed an appeal instead of preferring revision before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings against the order dated 14.3.1993. It is evident from the language implied in Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 that the Director has wide jurisdiction to look into the propriety and legality of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, before exercising his jurisdiction under Section 54 of the Act have sought the report from the Consolidation Officer to get the exact position existing on the spot. There is no bar that the parties cannot approach the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, under Section 54 without availing the remedy of appeal. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. April 3, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), J. ™