IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 87/2003 Reserved on: 4.5.2007 Date of decision :25.5.2007 Jagdish Ram alias Jago & another. …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 petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate For the respondent No.1 Mr. M.S. Chandel, Adovcate General with Mr. M.A. Khan, and Ms. Meenakashi Sharma, Dy.As.G. For the respondents No.2 to 6:Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. By way of this petition order dated 18.10.2002 passed by Director, Consolidation of Holdings under section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation of Holdings) Act, 1971 has been challenged. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that as per order dated 9.9.1999 passed by Consolidation Officer-cum- A.C. Ist Grade, Dehra, the partition of Khata was approved. The partition proceedings were initiated by the Consolidation Officer-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Dehra in sequel to the directions issued by this Court on 22.7.1999. The relevant extract of the order passed by Consolidation Officer-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Dehra is reproduced below: 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.. 2 ”The Counsel of the respondents are agreeable for partition and in the partition of Khata No.60 which was affected on 22,24,25.11.1997, they have only objection that the road has not been partitioned equally. The examination of the record shows that the respondents are owners of 2/3rd of the area and they were found to have been given 79 Mtrs. Less by the side of road and accordingly, the orders are passed to grant 47 Mtrs. From Khata no. 876 and 32 Mtrs. From Khata no. 952 by the side of the road to the respondents. Further the counsels of the plaintiffs and respondents admit that the partition of Khata No.60 by the ACO has correctly been made. In this connection, the statement of the counsels of plaintiffs and Sh. B.K. Dixit of the respondents have been recorded, which are annexed in this file. According to statements none of the parties has any objection about the partition. Hence the file of partition is approved. According to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. dated 22.7.1999 and keeping in view the compromise of plaintiffs and respondents, the orders are passed to effect partition in the record. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9.9.1999, the petitioners filed revision in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala exercising the powers of Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala on 12.5.2000. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition as not maintainable on 24.6.2002. Thereafter the petitioners had filed revision petition before the Director Consolidation of Holdings under section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation of Holdings) Act, 1971 on the ground that Consolidation Officer had wrongly partitioned the Khata of the parties because the record of the village 3 handed over to the Mohal authority and the Consolidation Officer had no power to partition their Khata. The Director Consolidations of Holdings rejected the revision on 18.10.2002. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners has strenuously argued that the order dated 18.10.2002 is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the Director Consolidation of Holdings has failed to exercise the jurisdiction as vested in him. Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General and Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the order dated 18.10.2002. I have heard the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the order passed by the Consolidation Officer- cum-AC-Ist Grade dated 9.9.1999 that the partition of the Khata has been ordered on the basis of consent of the respective parties. The counsel appearing on behalf of the parties had admitted that the partition of Khata No. 60 by the Consolidation Officer was correctly made. The learned Consolidation Officer had recorded the statements of the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the order passed by this Court dated 22.7.1999 and keeping in view the compromise of the parties had effected the partition. Once the parties had agreed before the Consolidation Officer and the statements of the counsel of the parties had been recorded which led to the partition either of the party cannot be permitted to back out from the partition effected on the basis of consent of the parties. The Director Consolidation of Holdings has rightly come to the conclusion that once the partition has been effected on the basis of written consent, the same could not be assailed before him. The Director Consolidation of Holdings has rightly invoked the principles of estoppel against the 4 petitioners. If the parties are permitted to file the appeal/revision against the consent orders, it will lead to unsettling the settled things. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings under section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed and the order of the Director Consolidation of Holdings dated 18.10.2002 is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge May 25, 2007 *Awasthi*