2025:UHC:3961 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1341/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Anshu Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bora, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No. 2. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. 2. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in Court today is taken on record. 3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 04.06.2022, passed by Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, Haridwar in Case Nos. 6, 81 & 82 of the year 2021-22. He has also challenged the judgment dated 11.04.2025, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 105 of 2022-23. 4. The Consolidation Officer held that the land which petitioner claims to have purchased from the legal representatives of late Sadhu Giri was in fact sold by late Sadhu Giri during his life time to respondent No. 1 vide sale deed dated 21.06.2002 and ordered for mutating name of respondent No. 1 in the revenue records. 5. The Revisional Court has mentioned in the impugned judgment that Sadhu Giri executed a 2025:UHC:3961 sale deed in favour of father of respondent No. 1 on 30.01.1992, whereby 1.024 hectare land was transferred and thereafter Sadhu Giri executed another sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1, whereby remaining land i.e. admeasuring 0.101 hectare was transferred in favour of respondent No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner purchased the land in question from the sons of late Sadhu Giri, whose names were duly recorded in Revenue Records and they were also in possession over the said land, therefore, claim of the petitioner cannot be defeated and his name deserves to be recorded in revenue records. 7. Since Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation have returned a finding that original tenure holder i.e. Sadhu Giri transferred his entire land in favour of respondent No. 1 and his father and said finding has not been assailed in the memo of appeal, filed before Deputy Director Consolidation nor in this writ petition, therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. 8. Thus, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.05.2025 Mahinder/ 2025:UHC:3961