Judgment Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Present writ petition is arising from the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar in revision no. 469/2003 – 04, restored revision no. 342/2005 – 06 (Manjura Vs. Kallu and others). By the impugned order learned Revisional Court pleased to allow the revision thereby setting aside the order dated 13.01.2004 passed by learned Appellate Authority / Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Haridwar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Assistant Consolidation Officer / Consolidation Officer, with the consent of the parties made proposal of chaks and on the proposed chaks, possession was exchanged. It is recorded by the Revisional Court that since the parties are in possession over the proposed chaks, hence, learned Appellate Court was not justified in making modification of the chaks proposed and accepted by the parties. 4. Having heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, this Court is of the view that once chaks were proposed with the consent of the parties and possession was exchanged on the proposed chaks, hence, there was no occasion to approach the Appellate Court. It is settled position of law once the matter has been settled amicably it should be respected, unless and until, either of the parties make out a case of fraud. Petitioner has not come up with a case of fraud, hence, Appellate Court was not justified in modifying the chaks as proposed by the Consolidation Officer with the consent of the parties. 5. For the reasons stated above, impugned order dated 28.03.2007 passed by Revisional Court calls for no interference. Writ petition is dismissed.