RAMESH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is not properly worded. The unnecessary challenge has been thrown by the petitioners against the judgment and order dtd. 8/7/2019 passed by learned Second Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Case No.164 Krishan Dutt Vs. State, as well as the judgment and order dtd. 16/1/2023 passed by learned Settlement Officer Consolidation, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Consolidation Appeal No.74 of 2019 Somprakash and Anr. Vs. Anuj and Ors., which are still subject matter of Consolidation Revision No.71 of 2022-23 Somprakash and Anr. Vs. Anuj and Ors., pending in the Court of learned Deputy Director Consolidation/District Magistrate, Haridwar. Thus, the prayer No.(I) is not maintainable before this Court.

(2.) Second prayer sought by petitioners in the present writ petition is for a direction to private respondents to maintain status quo and furthermore not to create any third party interest and to change the nature of the property during pendency of revision preferred by the petitioners.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Consolidation Revision No.71 of 2022-23 Somprakash and Anr. Vs. Anuj and Ors., pending before learned Deputy Director Consolidation/ District Magistrate, Haridwar, an application has been moved by the petitioners on 24/10/2025 stating therein that the private respondents are raising construction over the property in dispute, and therefore, a prayer has been made to pass an order of status-quo so far as the possession and the nature of suit property in dispute.