##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No.2945 of 2023

Smt. Kamlesh

……Petitioner

Versus

Mangesh Kumar and another

………Respondents

Mr. Ankit Bisht, learned counsel i/b Mr. Himanshu Pal,

learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil

Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Mr. K.S. Mehta, learned Addl. CSC with Mr. S.K. Nainwal,

learned S.C. for the State-respondent nos.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has

sought quashing of order dated 24.08.2023 passed by

learned Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar in

Revision No.33 of 2023 ‘Smt. Kamlesh v. Mangesh Kumar

and another’ whereby the said revision was dismissed.

Petitioner has also challenged the order dated

09.06.2023 passed in Appeal No.05 of 2022-23 ‘Mangesh

Kumar v. Smt. Kamlesh’, whereby the Settlement Officer

(Consolidation) has allowed the delay condonation in the

appeal and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

2. It is the case of petitioner that the land which

is the subject matter of the proceedings was mutated in

the revenue records in the name of petitioner on

15.02.2014 in Case No.90. The said order was challenged

by the respondents in the year 2016 by filing an appeal

under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Land

Holdings Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer

(Consolidation) Camp Roorkee. By reason of judgment

dated 09.06.2023, learned Settlement Officer

1

(Consolidation) condoned the delay of 02 years and four

months. It is feeling aggrieved by the condonation of

delay, petitioner challenged the said order in Revision

Petition being Revision No.33 of 2023 before the Deputy

Director of Consolidation/Addl. Collector (Administration)

Haridwar.

3. The main ground of challenge by the petitioner

in the revisional Court was that the learned Settlement

Officer (Consolidation), while condoning the delay, has

not given any reason as to why the delay of 02 years and

04 months could be condoned. The Deputy Director of

Consolidation by his order dated 24.08.2023 dismissed

the revision and affirmed the order passed by the

Settlement Officer Consolidation whereby the delay was

condoned. Hence this petition.

4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the

petitioner that the learned Deputy Director of

Consolidation/Addl. Collector (Administration) Haridwar

has dismissed the revision petition outrightly and

affirmed the order condoning the delay.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent no.1 has argued that the

Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. Collector

(Administration) Haridwar while dismissing the revision

has clearly gave a finding of fact that the Settlement

Officer Consolidation gave proper opportunity of hearing

to the parties. Moreover, learned Dy. Director of

Consolidation too has passed the order in accordance

with law after hearing both the parties. It needs to be

mentioned that only the delay has been condoned in

filing the appeal which order has been affirmed by the

Revisional Court.

2

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the

parties and after going through the record, there is no

illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. The

findings recorded are the concurrent ones which do not

require any interference by this Court.

7. The petition lacks merit and the same is

dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the

concerned Court for deciding the case on merits as per

law.

8. Interim order dated 18.10.2023 is hereby

vacated.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

29.12.2025

Rdang

3