Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 381 of 2004 (Old No.9111 of 1992) Liaqat …………….. Petitioner Versus The Joint Director of Consolidation, Meerut and others. …………. Respondents. …………………. Sri M.S.Tyagi, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State on behalf of respondent No.1. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This writ petition is directed against the common judgment and order dated 31.01.1992 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation in Revision No.256, Shareef versus Liaqat and others and Revision No.175, Peera versus Liaqat and others, whereby the revisions of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have been allowed. 2. The respondent No.2 filed objection under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as the Act). The said objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 20.06.1987. After a lapse of about three years the respondent No.2 filed another objection under Section 21(1) of the Act which was also dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 24.11.1990 with a finding that the earlier objection has already been dismissed. The respondent No.2 filed third objection under Section 21(1) of the Act which was also 2 dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 05.03.1991 with the finding that the judgment and order dated 20.06.1987 and 24.11.1990 operates as resjudicata against the respondent no.2. The respondent No.2 filed appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against the judgment and order dated 05.03.1991 which was also dismissed on 27.07.1991 with the finding that since the respondent No.2 has not filed any appeal against the order dated 20.06.1987, the present appeal against the order dated 05.03.1991 is not maintainable. Against the said order the respondents filed separate revisions which were allowed by the common impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional court fell into error in not considering that the earlier rejection of objection operated as resjudicata and second objection could not have been proceeded with until the order dated 20.06.1987 is set aside. 4. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.1992 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the revisional court to decide afresh in the light of observation made above. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh