HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2025 (M/S) Pramod Kumar ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and other ……..... Respondents Present : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) It is the case of the petitioner that Consolidation proceedings have been undertaken in a Border Village of Uttarakhand despite the fact that there is a boundary dispute with the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner seeks directions that the respondent no.2 may be directed to take a decision on the representation dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Consolidation proceedings have been undertaken by the respondent authorities in Village Chandpuri Khadar, Laksar, District Haridwar, which is a Border Village of the State of Uttarakhand. But, there is a boundary dispute with adjoining District of Muzaffarnagar of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, until the boundary dispute is resolved, Consolidation proceedings may not be taken in a correct manner. He would submit that a 2 representation was given by the petitioner to the respondent no.3, but it has yet not been decided. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the representation, which is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, may be decided within a period of eight weeks. 5. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned State Counsel. 6. The petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.3 to take a decision on the representation given by the petitioner, which is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, within a period of eight weeks. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2025 Sanjay