[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Akram vs Shamshad on 16 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.2734 (M/S) of 2019
Akram .........Petitioner
Versus
Shamshad .........Respondent
Mr. Shakib Husain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for
the respondent.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of present writ petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 passed
by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector
(Admn.), Haridwar in Revision No.82 of 2017-18, Akram vs.
Shamshad, whereby, the revision petition was dismissed, as
well as the judgment and order dated 13.04.2018 passed by
the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in Appeal No.8,
Shamshad vs. Akram, under Section 11(1) of the U.P.
Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 ("the Act").
2. The facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details
are that a time barred objection was filed by the original
petitioner-Akram S/o Inam before the Consolidation Officer,
Roorkee, District Haridwar. The said objection was made by
the petitioner-Akram saying that the valuation of his land
comprised in Gata No.401/11 Minzumla admeasuring 0.3579
hectare has wrongly been fixed. The valuation of Gata
should be 40 paise in place of 10 or 20 paise. The said
objection filed by the petitioner-Akram was allowed after
condoning the delay in filing the objection and at the same
time, the valuation of land comprising of Gata No.401/11
Minzumla admeasuring 0.3579 hectare was increased from
10 to 20 paise vide order dated 10.07.2003.
3. The respondent-Shamshad challenged the said
order by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation), Haridwar, Camp, Roorkee which was
registered as Appeal No.8, Shamshad vs. Akram, under
Section 11(1) of the Act. The order dated 10.07.2003 was
challenged by the appellant-Shamshad mainly on the ground
that no reasons have been given by the Consolidation Officer
for increasing the valuation of the land comprising of Gata
No.401/11 Minzumla admeasuring 0.3579 hectare. He
further pleaded in the appeal that valuation of adjoining land
of Gata No.401/11 has the valuation of 10 paise only. The
appeal filed by the respondent-Shamshad was allowed by
reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.04.2018
and the valuation of the land in question was restored to 10
paise as it was fixed earlier.
4. It is feeling aggrieved by the said appellate order,
the petitioner filed the revision petition before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Admn.),
Haridwar, which was registered as Revision No.82 of 2017-
18, Akram vs. Shamshad. The said revision was dismissed
by reason of the judgment and order dated 16.05.2019,
wherein, the learned Revisional Court has found the
reasoning given by the appellate court sound and perfect and
refused to interfere in the appellate order.
5. It is feeling aggrieved by the appellate as well as
revisional order, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. I have gone through the impugned judgments and
orders passed by the authorities concerned and found that
there is no illegality in the impugned order. It has not been
pleaded by the petitioner even in the writ petition as to why
the Consolidation Officer disclosed no reason of increase of
valuation of Gata number in question from 10 to 20 paise.
The appellate authority was right in holding that without any
basis the Consolidation Officer has passed the order of
increase of the valuation from 10 to 20 paise and the
appellate authority was also right in holding that since the
adjoining land of Gata Number in question carries the
valuation of 10 paise and therefore, in that situation, there
should not be any increase for valuation of the Gata area in
question.
7. Accordingly, no interference is required and the
writ petition is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.12.2025
Ravi
