JUDGMENT : Sukhdev Ram, the original writ petitioner, approached this Court almost three decades ago, assailing the order dated 15.6.1987 (Annexure-14) passed by the Land Settlement Commissioner-cum-Director (Consolidation) and the order dated 17.5.1965 (Annexure-6) passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Sukhdev Ram filed this writ petition as far back as 12.11.1987, which has remained pending before this Court for as long as 28 years. During this interregnum, original writ-petitioner, Sukhdev Ram died, so also the original respondent no.5- Goverdhan, respondent no.7-Hanuman, respondent no.8-Prabhat, respondent no.10-Deviya, respondent no.11-Bhonrya, respondent no.12-Ladu have died. In fact, one of the L.Rs. of original respondent no.11 i.e. Lachchi Ram also died and his legal heirs were brought on record. As against seven of the deceased respondents, 38 legal heirs had to be impleaded as party-respondents to represent their interest. But then fortunate are those two original respondents, who have survived the life of this litigation before this Court. It is indeed a sad commentary on the working of our judicial system that a writ petition should have taken long thirty eight years to get decided. Nevertheless, one must derive solace in the fact that after all this litigation, as far as the first stage before the Single Bench of the High Court is concerned, is coming to end. 2. This litigation has had a checkered history, commencing from early 60's when notification was published in the official gazette by the Government on 21st April, 1960 for consolidation of the revenue lands of village Bhampur Kalan of Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur. The Consolidation Officer appointed under Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1954 (for short-`the Act') prepared the scheme of consolidation, whereunder he sought to consolidate the scattered pieces of khatedari lands of the tenants into different chaks, for allotment to the tenants according to the existing valuation of the lands. Chak no.32, 33, 34, 46 and 49 were formed prior to 1961. Sukhdev filed objections against the draft scheme of consolidation before the Consolidation Officer on the grounds that the entire land on wall “bawri wala” has not been properly valued, the chak of the barani lands of the petitioner had not been properly framed; facility of irrigation was also not considered and convenient size and shape of the land was also not considered. According to Sukhdev, lands of khasra nos.312 measuring 2.18 hectares, khasra no.314 measuring 1.17 hectares and khasra no.315 measuring 4.11 hectares, which could be conveniently irrigated by him from his own well situated in khasra no.303, have been improperly distributed to others. While khasra no.312 in chak no.46 and khasra no.315 in chak no.34 have been given to Goverdhan, khasra no.314 and 315 in chak no.33 have been given to Mangilal. According to him, lands of khasra nos.312, 314 and 315 are quite adjacent to the chak no.32 of his barani land comprising of khasra no.303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 299, 307, 308 and 310. He therefore pleaded that lands of khasra nos.305, 307, 309 and 308 may be given to Mangi Lal and Goverdhan. Chak no.26 allotted to Devilal, Lada Ram and Bhonrilal S/o Mangilal is quite adjacent to the lands of khasra no.305, 307, 308 and 309 offered by the petitioner. 3. Consolidation Officer partly accepted his objections and allotted an additional chak regarding chahi land to him, but rejected the prayer for exchange of barani lands by order dated 19.9.1962. Petitioner-Sukhdev preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who partly accepted the appeal and petitioner was directed to join all the concerned persons as parties. Petitioner moved an application for joining the co-sharers of “bawri wala” well also together with Mangilal, who was allotted khasra no.314 and 315 and Goverdhan, who was allotted khasra no.312. The co-sharers of “bawri wala” well i.e. Bansi, Ganga Bux and Ram Pratap were made parties only to avoid the controversy. The application was accepted and notices were issued to newly impleaded respondents. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and allotted the lands of khasra no.314 and 315 measuring 5.13 hectares in exchange of lands of khasra no.300, 299 and part of 304 measuring 5.14 hectares and rejected the prayer regarding khasra no.312. Mangiya, his sons Deviya, Bhonriya and Ladiya filed revision petition against the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) before the Director (Consolidation). During the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, Mangiya sold the lands of chak no.33 comprising of khasra no.314 and 315 measuring 5.13 to Ram Pratap. The Director (Consolidation) in the revision petition vide order dated 30.7.1967 impleaded Ram Pratap as non-applicant in the revision, calling upon him to put forth his claim in writing. 4. During the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, Mangiya sold the lands of chak no.33 comprising of khasra no.314 and 315 measuring 5.13 to Ram Pratap. The Director (Consolidation) in the revision petition vide order dated 30.7.1967 impleaded Ram Pratap as non-applicant in the revision, calling upon him to put forth his claim in writing. 4. Eventually, the Director (Consolidation) accepted the revision petition on 31.7.1970 on the ground that the Settlement Officer has not decided the question of limitation and late joining of the parties. He remanded the matter to Settlement Officer (Consolidation) with the direction to decide these two points first. Since the consolidation operations were already closed by the time the revision petition was decided, the papers were sent to the Collector for decision by the Director (Consolidation). The Collector sent the papers to the SDO for decision. The SDO issued notices to the parties and after hearing the parties accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 7.6.1976. Again Devilal, Bhonri Lal and Ladu, respondents herein, filed revision petition against the order of SDO before the Director (Consolidation) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Director (Consolidation) accepted the revision petition on the ground of jurisdiction and remanded the same to the Collector for decision on merits. The Collector, Jaipur specifically dealt with both the points and accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 9.5.1977. But in the meantime, Mangi Lal had sold the land of khasra no.314 and 315 in chak no.33 to Ram Pratap on 13.7.1964 for a consideration of Rs.2,000, without obtaining any sanction from the Consolidation Officer as required under Section 29 of the Consolidation Act. Ram Pratap subsequently sold it to Goverdhan on 4.12.1968 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,000 only. This time again Goverdhan, Narsingh, Hanuman, Prabhat and Hari Narayan, sons of Ram Pratap filed a revision petition before the Director (Consolidation) against the order of Collector. The Director (Consolidation) by order dated 15.6.1987 accepted the revision petition on the ground that rights of the affected parties and the question of limitation have not been considered and that the persons who have been cultivating the land for last 25 years, cannot be disturbed. It is against the backdrop of these facts that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. It is against the backdrop of these facts that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Director (Consolidation) has totally misconstrued the scheme of the Consolidation Act which cast a duty on the Consolidation Officer to form the Chaks giving predominance to planned and systematic shape and size of the plots of land, convenience of irrigation facilities and proper valuation of the lands on consideration of texture and quality of its soil, facilities of irrigation, productivity and distance from abadi and other advantages etc. The Settlement Officer in exercise of his power has correctly repartitioned the land. The Director (Consolidation) who exercises only delegated power of the State Government of revision, had no jurisdiction to disturb this order. Such power could be exercised only if the order of the lower authority is found illegal or improper. He has thus exceeded its jurisdiction and committed material irregularity in discharge of his duties. It is argued that Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1954 provides that to achieve the aim of consolidation the scattered and uneven plots of lands must be given an even and rectangular shape. The Director failed to appreciate that affected person, who could approach him in revision petition was Mangilal only and that Goverdhan, Narsingh, Hanuman, Prabhat and Hari Narayan had no right to file the revision petition. It is argued that Section 7 and 8 bars the transfer of lands under consolidation and Section 9 provides for penalty for transfer or partition of any land contrary to the provisions of the Act and declare such transfer to be void. Section 29 of the Act provides that after a notification under sub-section (1) of section 14 has issued and during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, no landholder or tenant, upon whom the scheme will be binding shall have power without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer to transfer or otherwise deal with any portion of his holding so as to affect the rights of any other landholder or tenant. 6. 6. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Director (Consolidation) has erred in law in reversing the order of Consolidation Officer on the premise that the affected parties were not provided opportunity of hearing, whereas the fact was that only party, which could be said to be adversely affected and aggrieved for the purpose of khasra no.314 and 315 was Mangi Lal and his sons. Referring to the note sheet of the Consolidation Officer dated 6.2.1964 (Annexure-4), learned counsel submitted that Mangilal, Devilal, Bhonriya, Godu and Ram Pratap were present before the Settlement Officer. Thereafter, as per note sheet Annexure-5, again Devi Sahay, Ladu, Gyarsa, Mangi Lal and Bhonriya were present before the Consolidation Officer on 2.3.1965. If Ram Pratap did not appear on that day despite knowledge of the date, he did so at his own risk. Thus, the concerned persons adversely affected were already present before the appellate authority and there is no violation of Section 21(5) of the Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1954 and Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1955. 7. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that as far as land of khasra no.300 is concerned, it was given to the petitioner as part of consolidation proceedings before Settlement Officer, who decided the appeal in favour of petitioner on 17.5.1965 (Annexure-6). Perusal of the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) indicates that he has considered every aspect of the matter and thought it fit to allot khasra no.314 and 315 to the petitioner. He has recorded reasons for doing so that it will make the land of the petitioner more compact and it will facilitate irrigation of entire land of the petitioner from his well situated in khasra no.303. He has also considered the level of the land of different khasra numbers for the purpose of irrigation. On the other hand, the other land of Mangi Lal, the khatedar of khasra no.314 and 315 is situated far away. The khasra nos.314 and 315 are isolated from his other land and, therefore, cannot properly form part of other lands for the purpose of consolidation, so as to make the land compact and to facilitate in irrigation. It is contended that Gyarsa or any other tenant never raised any objection for allotment of this land to the petitioner till today i.e. for last 50 years. It is contended that Gyarsa or any other tenant never raised any objection for allotment of this land to the petitioner till today i.e. for last 50 years. Therefore, the respondents have no locus standi to raise objection about the consent given by Gyarsa regarding khasra no.300. 8. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while petitioner has been given land of khasra no.314 and 315 measuring 5 bighas and 13 biswas, which was of Mangi Lal, but in lieu of that, petitioner's lands of khasra no.299, 300 and 304 min measuring 5 bighas and 14 biswas have been given to the share of Mangi Lal. Mangi Lal has thus received 1 bigha land in excess. Prayer of the petitioner for allotment of land of khasra no.312 has been rejected by the Settlement Officer in his order dated 17.5.1965, which order has been reiterated by the Collector vide order dated 9.5.1977. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner was never put in physical possession of the land as per the approved consolidation scheme on 1.7.1977 vide Annexure-17. The respondents by committing trespass possibly re-entered the land of khasra no.314 and 315 without permission or approval from any competent authority. Mangi Lal and his sons never filed any revision petition against the order dated 9.5.1977 (Annexure-11). As per the scheme of the Act, situation of the land is of paramount consideration and not the person who holds a particular khasra number. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 10. Per contra, Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that Gyarsa was not the only khatedar of the lands of khasra no.300. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the judgment of the Director (Consolidation) and submitted that the lands of khasra no.300 fell in chak no.29. After consolidation Moti and Nathu, sons of Mangla were khatedar of 1/3rd part of the land, whereas Isra S/o Khema, Meva S/o Fatta, Laccha S/o Hukama, Ladu and Pragya S/o Ganesh were khatedars in remaining 2/3rd part. Gyarsa, whose consent is being cited by the petitioner, is said to be son of Isra, one of the khatedars of 2/3rd part of khasra no.300. Gyarsa, whose consent is being cited by the petitioner, is said to be son of Isra, one of the khatedars of 2/3rd part of khasra no.300. The Director (Consolidation) was therefore perfectly justified in holding that the entire land of khasra no.300 could not be given to the share of the petitioner without providing opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. They were neither made parties, nor were provided opportunity of hearing. The order of Settlement Officer dated 17.5.1965 as reiterated by the Collector, Jaipur vide order dated 9.5.1977 has thus affected them adversely. Learned counsel argued that the sale in favour of Ram Pratap was questioned by the petitioner and has been upheld upto the Board of Revenue, a fact noticed by the Director (Consolidation) in his order. This sale was accompanied by physical delivery of possession. Mutation was attested in favour of Ram Pratap by Gram Panchayat on 1.12.1967. Appeal filed against the said mutation by the petitioner-Sukhdev was dismissed by the Additional Collector by order dated 27.1.1969. Second appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 12.8.1971 and revision petition was dismissed by order dated 29.1.1977. Ram Pratap transferred his share of chak no.32 to Goverdhan by registered sale deed, who was also impleaded as party in the proceeding before the Revenue Appellate Authority by the petitioner. 11. Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel argued that possession of khasra no.314 and 315 always remained with the respondents. The criminal case filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is argued that now more than 45 years have passed and the respondents have invested huge amount for installation of ground pipe line system for irrigation. Land has been protected by kacchi boundary and plantations and there exists 25 big trees. The respondents have constructed a bore well and house near khasra no.312. The agriculture land is owned by the respondents and the petitioner is residing with their family having 15 members. Khasra no.314, 315 and 315 min is attached with khasra no.312 and from which the underground pipe line irrigation system is provided to khasra no.314, 315 and 315 min for convenience of cultivation. In case respondents are allotted some other khasra in lieu of khasra no.314 and 315, than cultivation from well existing in khasra no.312 would not be possible. Khasra no.314 and 315 are attached to khasra no.325 min and 312, which are owned by respondents. In case respondents are allotted some other khasra in lieu of khasra no.314 and 315, than cultivation from well existing in khasra no.312 would not be possible. Khasra no.314 and 315 are attached to khasra no.325 min and 312, which are owned by respondents. It is argued that petitioner has been allotted chak no.32 and all khasras in this chak are interconnected, which is convenient to the petitioner. It is argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore the writ petition be dismissed. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The basic order in this case is that of Settlement Officer dated 17.5.1965, who has directed that the lands of chak no.33 be given to the petitioner-Sukhdev in lieu of his lands of khasra no.299, 300 and 304 min measuring 5 bigha and 14 biswas. The Director (Consolidation) by his order dated 31.7.1970 accepted the revision petition filed by Mangiya, Deviya, Bhonriya and Ladiya on the ground that the Settlement Officer has not decided the question of limitation and late joining of the parties and as such remanded the matter to him with direction to decide these questions. The SDO by order dated 7.6.1976 (Annexure-9) again allowed the appeal on remand reiterating the same order as passed earlier by Settlement Officer on 17.5.1965. This order was again subjected to challenge in revision petition by Deviya, Bhonriya and Ladiya before Land Settlement Commissioner cum Director (Consolidation). He by his order dated 16.11.1976 held that SDO has no competence to decide the revision petition, therefore, remanded the matter to Collector, Jaipur. The Collector, Jaipur by his order dated 9.5.1977 again set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1962 and reiterated the order earlier passed by the Settlement Officer dated 17.5.1965. It is against this order that finally the revision petition filed by the respondents has been allowed by the Director (Consolidation) vide impugned order dated 15.6.1987. 14. This Court has to examine the correctness of the impugned order dated 15.6.1987 on the basis of reasoning given in that order. Perusal of the order indicates that what weighed with the revisional authority in allowing the revision petition was the fact that the affected persons were neither made parties, nor were heard. 14. This Court has to examine the correctness of the impugned order dated 15.6.1987 on the basis of reasoning given in that order. Perusal of the order indicates that what weighed with the revisional authority in allowing the revision petition was the fact that the affected persons were neither made parties, nor were heard. Petitioner has sought to dispute this finding contending that written consent was given by Gyarsa for transfer of land of khasra no.300, whereas the revisional authority in his order has thoroughly discussed this aspect and mentioned that land of khasra no.300 was included in chak no.29. Moti and Nathu, sons of Mangla were khatedar of 1/3rd part of the land, whereas Isra S/o Khema, Meva S/o Fatta, Laccha S/o Hukama, Ladu and Pragya S/o Ganesh were khatedars in remaining 2/3rd part of land of khasra no.300. Although there is no mention of Gyarsa amongst these khatedars, but according to the petitioner, he happens to be son of Isra. Even then he would be one of the khatedars in only a fragmentation of land of khasra no.300, total measurement of which was 2 bighas and 18 biswas. 15. Before adverting to the rival submissions, a brief resume to the scheme of Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1954 and Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1955 would not be out of place. As would be evident from the preamble of the Act, this Act was enacted to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the State of Rajasthan. 16. Section 2(c) of the Act defines “Consolidation of Holdings” to mean the amalgamation and the re-distribution of all or any of the lands in an area, or in any part of an area, so as to make the holdings in such area or part more compact. The purpose of consolidation and prevention of fragmentation thus is to make the holding of every khatedar compact as much as possible whereby the cultivation becomes easier and irrigation facility becomes convenient, which in turn reduces cost of cultivation and increases the production. Chapter-II of the Act of 1954 contains the provisions with regard to determination of Standard Areas and Treatment of Fragmentation. Chapter-II of the Act of 1954 contains the provisions with regard to determination of Standard Areas and Treatment of Fragmentation. Section 3 of the Act provides that the State Government may, after inquiry as it deems fit, specify any area as notified area for the purposes of this Chapter. Section 4 provides that State Government may, after such inquiry as it deems fit, provisionally settle for any class of land in any notified area, the minimum area that can be cultivated profitably as a separate plot. Section 5 provides for determination and revision of standard area by the State Government after considering the objections, if any, received within three months of the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4. Section 6 provides for entry in the record of rights on notification of a standard area under sub-section (2) of section 5 for all fragments. Section 7 bars the transfer and lease of fragments in respect of which a notice under Section 6, supra has been given. Section 8 further prohibits the fragmentation of land by directing that no land in any notified area shall be transferred or partitioned so as to create a fragment. Section 14 in Chapter-III of the Act provides for declaration to make scheme for consolidation of holdings. 17. Section 17 even provides that whenever in preparing a scheme for the consolidation of holdings, it appears to the Consolidation Officer that it is necessary to amalgamate any road, street, lane, path, channel, drain, tank, pasture or land reserved for common purposes, he shall make a declaration to that effect stating in that declaration that it is proposed that the rights of the public as well as of all individuals with regard to them shall be extinguished or transferred to any new road, street, lane, path, channel, drain, tank, pasture or land reserved for common purposes laid down in the scheme of consolidation. According to Section 18, it shall be lawful for the Consolidation Officer to direct that any land specifically assigned for any common purpose shall cease to be so assigned and no other land shall be assigned in its place. Section 19 provides for publication of draft scheme by the Consolidation Officer whereafter Section 20 contains the provisions for confirmation of scheme. Section 19 provides for publication of draft scheme by the Consolidation Officer whereafter Section 20 contains the provisions for confirmation of scheme. It directs the State Government may by notification appoint one or more persons to be Settlement Officers (Consolidation) and specify the area in which each such officer shall have jurisdiction. Section 21 contains the provisions with regard to repartition of holdings and stipulates that the Consolidation Officer shall, after consulting the landholders and tenants in the area concerned, carry out repartition of holdings in accordance with the scheme framed under Section 20 and the boundaries of the holdings as demarcated shall be shown on the map which shall be published in the prescribed manner in the area concerned. It also contains the provisions with regard to written objections being filed by the aggrieved person within 20 days of such publication before the Consolidation Officer and if such objections are not rejected, for giving of a public notice thereof inviting all persons likely to be affected thereby to appear and show cause against the objection. Sub-section (5) provides that any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (4) may file appeal within 30 days. The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 21 however stipulates that the order appealed from, shall not be varied or reversed without affording the persons likely to be affected by such variation or reversal an opportunity of being heard. Section 35 in this connection bars the jurisdiction of civil courts whereas powers are given to the State Government under Section 37 to call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of provided that no order shall be verified or reversed without giving opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. Section 43A then contains the provisions with regard to close of consolidation operations and submits that as soon as may be after the landholders and tenants have entered into possession of their new holdings, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette to the effect that the consolidation operations have been closed. Having thus understood the scheme of the Act, let us now advert to the rival submissions. 18. Having thus understood the scheme of the Act, let us now advert to the rival submissions. 18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mangilal, Devilal, Bhonriya, Godu and Ram Pratap were present before the Settlement Officer, as seen from the note sheet dated 6.2.1964 and all these persons, except Ram Pratap were again present before him on 2.3.1965, but therein no mention is found with regard to presence of Moti, Nathu, Isra, Meva, Laccha, Ladu and Ganesh. Even if one of them namely; Isra has surrendered his right in favour of petitioner, that would not facilitate modification of the order of re-partition passed by the Settlement Officer as upheld by the Collector. As already noted above, sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1954 provides that State Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint one or more persons to be Settlement Officers (Consolidation) and specify the area in which each such officer shall have jurisdiction. According to sub-section (2) of Section 20 if no objections are received to the draft scheme published under sub-section (1) of section 20, or within sixty days of its publication under sub-section (2) of Section 19, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall confirm the scheme. As per sub-section (3) of Section 20 if any objections are received to the amended draft scheme published under sub-section (2) of Section 19, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall, after taking the objections into consideration, either confirm the scheme with or without modifications or refuse to confirm it. According to sub-section (4) upon the confirmation of the scheme under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) the scheme as confirmed shall be published in the prescribed manner in the area concerned. 19. Section 21 then provides that Consolidation Officer shall, after consulting the landholders and tenants in the area concerned, carry out re-partition of holdings in accordance with the scheme of consolidation of holdings confirmed under Section 20 and the boundaries of the holdings as demarcated shall be shown on the map which shall be published in the prescribed manner in the area concerned. The right has been given to any person aggrieved by such re-partition to file a written objection within 20 days of such publication before the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (2). Sub-section (3) provides that the Consolidation Officer shall, if he does not reject the objection, give a public notice thereof. The right has been given to any person aggrieved by such re-partition to file a written objection within 20 days of such publication before the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (2). Sub-section (3) provides that the Consolidation Officer shall, if he does not reject the objection, give a public notice thereof. Sub-section (4) provides that on the date so appointed, the Consolidation Officer, after hearing all such person as may appear in response of the notice given under sub-section (3), pass such order on the objection as he considers proper. It is thereafter that sub-section (5) provides that any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (4) may, within 30 days of the passing thereof, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who shall after hearing the appellant, if present, pass such order thereon as he considers proper. It is in exercise of powers under Section 21(5) that the Settlement Officer earlier on 17.5.1965 and the District Collector later on remand on 9.5.1977 have passed the orders where against the revision petition has been allowed by the Director (Consolidation). Proviso to Section 21(5) stipulates that the order appealed from, shall not be varied or reversed, without affording the persons likely to be affected by such variation or reversal an opportunity of being heard. 20. Admittedly, in the present case neither Mangi Lal and his sons were made parties to the proceedings in the appeal before the Settlement Officer/Collector, nor were they provided opportunity of hearing. This lacuna in the order passed by the Settlement Officer and Collector, does not stand rectified by mere reason of infraction of the other provisions prescribing transfer of land during currency of the conciliation proceedings as alleged by the petitioner. That part, in any case, has been taken note of by the revisional authority that sale of land of khasra no.314 and 315 in chak no.33 by Mangi Lal to Ram Pratap by registered sale deed dated 13.7.1964 culminated into mutation in his favour by Gram Panchayat on 1.12.1967. Appeal preferred by petitioner-Sukhdev against such mutation was dismissed by order dated 27.1.1969 by Assistant Collector and second appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by order dated 12.8.1971 and the revision petition was dismissed on 29.1.1977. 21. Appeal preferred by petitioner-Sukhdev against such mutation was dismissed by order dated 27.1.1969 by Assistant Collector and second appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by order dated 12.8.1971 and the revision petition was dismissed on 29.1.1977. 21. The revisional authority has also taken note of the fact that the parties are in possession of their respective share for last 25 years. And now if the period of 28 years of pendency of this writ petition is added thereto, this period would come to 53 years. The arguments of petitioner that he was put in possession by the revenue officials and the respondents have forcefully taken possession of the land in dispute, also does not improve his case in so far as the basic lacuna in the order of Settlement Officer and Collector is concerned. Moreover, the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents alleging trespass at the instance of petitioner has also failed. 22. In view of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.6.1987 passed by Land Settlement Commissioner-cum-Director (Consolidation) and that of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 17.5.1965 (Annexure-6). The same are therefore upheld. 23. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.