(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi exercising the powers of Director Consolidation in case No. 18 of 2010.
(2.) IT has been alleged that during consolidation the land abutting the road was allotted in favour of Respondent No. 2 by Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Petitioner challenged the order dated 1.9.1995 of the Settlement Officer in appeal which was partly allowed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings on 21.9.2000 and 18 marlas of land was allotted to the Petitioner. The further appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2 before Director, Consolidation of Holdings was dismissed on 3.8.2001. The Respondent No. 2 filed CWP No. 1197 of 2001 against aforesaid orders dated 3.8.2001, 21.9.2000. The Petitioner filed CWP No. 19 of 2002 in which aforesaid orders dated 3.8.2001, 21.9.2000 and 1.9.1995 were assailed. CWP No. 1197 of 2001 and CWP No. 19 of 2002 were decided by common judgment dated 15.3.2010 in which directions were issued to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings to take up the matter again for decision afresh in accordance with law.
(3.) THE Respondent No. 2 has contested the petition by filing reply in which he has taken the stand that no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The order passed by Director under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (for short Act) is subject to revision by the State Government under Section 54 of the Act which has not been invoked. The order dated 21.10.2010 is legal and valid. The order dated 3.8.2001 of the Director of Consolidation and order dated 21.9.2000 of Additional Director of Consolidation were rightly set aside by this Court in CWP No. 1197 of 2001. In the impugned order the Director of Consolidation has rightly up held the order dated 1.9.1995 of the Settlement Officer. The land having been partitioned under the Act as such present petition and the suit filed by Petitioner have become infructuous. Complete and substantial justice has been done between the parties and therefore, petition deserves dismissal.