2025:UHC:1041 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 989 of 2015 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogish Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner has challenged the judgments dated 07.06.2008 and 18.10.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, District Haridwar in the proceedings under Section 9 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He has also challenged the order dated 01.11.2012 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Roorkee, District Haridwar in his appeal and also the order dated 07.03.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar in revision petition. 4. It transpires that Consolidation Officer, Roorkee decided proceedings under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act vide order dated 16.04.1994. Petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, which was decided by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide judgment dated 26.03.1999 and the matter was remanded back to Consolidation Officer for decision afresh. 5. After remand, since petitioner did not appear before the Consolidation Officer, even after service of notice, therefore, the Consolidation Officer decided the matter on 07.06.2008 and 2025:UHC:1041 reiterated the earlier order passed on 16.04.1994. Petitioner sought recall of the said judgment dated 07.06.2008 by moving an application; his application was rejected by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.10.2011. 6. The orders dated 07.06.2008 and 18.10.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer was challenged by petitioner in appeal, which was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide judgment dated 01.11.2012. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a revision petition, which too was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment dated 07.03.2015. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that judgment dated 07.06.2008 was ex-parte, inasmuch as, petitioner was not heard, therefore, the said judgment was liable to be recalled on petitioner’s application and the Consolidation Officer has erroneously rejected petitioner’s recall application, despite the fact that petitioner is recorded as tenure holder in respect of land in question. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner had not been able to make out any good ground for recall of judgment dated 07.06.2008; the notice issued by Consolidation Officer, upon remand of matter by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was duly served upon the petitioner; even otherwise also, the remand was made by Appellate Court in an appeal filed by petitioner, therefore, he had sufficient notice of remand order 2025:UHC:1041 and petitioner himself is to be blamed for not appearing before the Consolidation Officer. 9. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Since notice issued by Consolidation Officer, upon remand of the matter, was duly served upon the petitioner and in his recall application also, petitioner has nowhere stated that notice was not served upon him and his only defence was that he was down with fever on that day; therefore, the order passed by Settlement Officer on 07.06.2008 cannot be faulted. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has made certain observations regarding possession over the land in question, which is not warranted. 12. Upon perusal of the judgment rendered by Deputy Director of Consolidation, this Court also finds that some out of context observation has been made which ought not to have been made. Accordingly, the observation made regarding possession, by revisional court, is expunged. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 17.02.2025 Aswal