- (1.) HEARD Sri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir, Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as also Sri Suresh Chandra Dumka, Advocate, hold­ing brief for Sri Vijay Bhatt, learned coun­sel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of cer-tiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14-08-2002 passed by the Deputy Direc­tor of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar (for short D.D.C.), (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) whereby the D.D.C. has dis­missed the Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) bearing No. 52/55 of 1998-99 of the petitioner. Relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, according to the peti­tioner are that the father of the petitioner held certain landed property in village Ajitpur. The father of the petitioner namely Sunder lal died when the peti­tioner was only two years old. According to the petitioner, under the orders of the then District Judge, Kumaun at Nainital, cousin of his father, namely Moti Ram, son of Chhote lal was appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor. Land of Khata No. 103 of village Ajitpur was wrongly entered in the land record in the name of Moti Ram, guardian of the petitioner, who died issueless. The land of Khasra No. 753 was entered in revenue records in the name of father of the peti­tioner. According to the petitioner himself, one Sri Murari lal (grandfather of the re­spondent no. 4) had filed his objection under Section 9-A(1) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer, Kichha on the ba­sis of his adverse possession over that land.
(3.) PROCEEDINGS of Suit Nos. 959, 960 and 961 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act pending before the Consolidation Officer, Kichha were going on. Ultimately, the relevant suit nos. 959, 960 and 961 were decided by the Consolidation Officer, Kichha by order dated 28-11-1988 in fa­vour of said Murari lal and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Consoli­dation Officer, Kichha. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal No. 33 of 1988 before the Settle­ment Officer Consolidation, Nainital (for short SOC). However, the appellate court did not find favour with the petitioner and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27-2-1989. Further aggrieved by the order of the S.O.C., the petitioner filed a revi­sion before the D.D.C. Udham Singh Nagar, which too was dismissed by the order impugned in the present writ petition.;