2026:UHC:4847 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1797/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Devansh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner claims to be elected gram pradhan of Gram Sabha, Rasoolpur, District Haridwar. As pradhan, she filed revision under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, challenging an order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 22.12.2021. 3. Revision filed by petitioner was dismissed by District Magistrate/Deputy Director, Consolidation vide order dated 04.05.2026 by holding that revision filed by some other person against order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 22.12.2021 was earlier dismissed on 26.11.2024. An observation has been made by Deputy Director of Consolidation that petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands and full facts were not disclosed. It is also observed that an interim order was passed on revision petition filed by petitioner which too was vacated by impugned order. 4. This Court do not find any reason to 2026:UHC:4847 interfere with the impugned order. 5. Admittedly, petitioner does not have any personal interest in the dispute, which was sought to be raised by her before Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Gaon Sabha land is under encroachment, therefore, petitioner had to file revision under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that if Gaon Sabha land is under encroachment, then petitioner should approach the concerned competent authority, including Assistant Collector, who can then initiate proceedings under Section 122-B of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 9. Petitioner did not have any cause of action available to her for maintaining revision petition. The reason assigned for dismissing revision filed by petitioner cannot be faulted. 10. Thus, there is no scope for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.06.2026 Mahinder/