YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri K. Ajit learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents.
(2.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 10 January 2011 and 31 January 2013 in terms of which the application of the private respondents for bringing the village map in accord with the final consolidation record was initially allowed. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been rejected.
(3.) It appears that after consolidation had concluded and CH Form-45 had been drawn up a dispute arose between the petitioners and private respondents with respect to the areas of plot Nos. 356,388 and 364. The rival claims ultimately formed subject matter of consideration in a revision which was disposed of on 1 June 2007 and the mater was remanded back to the authorities to revisit the entire dispute after taking into consideration the reports dated 2 November 2002 and 19 May 2003 and after permitting parties to adduce evidence in support of their claims. Pursuant to the order of remand when proceedings were initiated again, the respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 20 January 2011 based on the earlier reports dated 2 November 2002 and 19 May 2003. In addition to the aforementioned two reports, the respondent No. 2 also took into consideration a report submitted by the Consolidation Tracer dated 18 May 2008 and ultimately rested his decision on the said reports to hold against the petitioners. The challenge raised by the petitioners in revision has been negatived. Both the authorities have noted and taken into consideration the fact that consolidation operations had concluded and therefore, the report of the Consolidation Tracer was the most worthy of reliance.;