JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State and Dr. R.S.Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/1 to 3/4. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the other respondents to argue the matter. 3. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 29.5.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.4364 (Ghammar Vs. Dwarka). 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that plot nos.1168 and 1148 are the subject matter of controversy involved in the instant writ petition. Submission is that against the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 7.11.1983, Ghammar who was the private respondent no.4 (now deceased and represented by his legal heirs) had preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation bearing Revision No.4364 claiming that he should be granted plot no.1148 alongwith the trees. 5. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its order dated 29.5.1985 allowed the same and being aggrieved, the petitioner instituted the petition in the year 1985 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 5.9.1985 had granted an interim protection directing that the parties would maintain status quo and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation insofar as it related to plot nos.1168 and 1148 shall not be given effect to. 6. It is urged that the petitioner was entitled to have plot no.1148 and even though the trees on the said plot did not concern the petitioner but nevertheless he was entitled to be heard and insofar as his objections are concerned, the same should have been taken note of. It is urged that plot no.1168 also should have been allotted to the petitioner and in the aforesaid circumstances, this aspect has not been taken note of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by means of the instant writ petition. 7. It is urged that plot no.1168 also should have been allotted to the petitioner and in the aforesaid circumstances, this aspect has not been taken note of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by means of the instant writ petition. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for private respondent no.3 ( now through his legal heirs) has submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the possession of the chaks so allotted, its possession was delivered and not only the answering opposite parties but even the petitioner has made improvements and raised constructions as per the status as existed at a time when the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had passed the order. It is urged that after more than three and a half decades, in case if the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is interfered with, it would create chaos as the parties have already reconciled with their possession which were granted to them and raised constructions which perhaps would be irreversible and in the aforesaid circumstances, the order if implemented, as per the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, may be maintained to which the private respondent no.3 would have no objection. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the instant petition at the time of admission, protected the rights insofar as plot nos.1168 and 1148 are concerned. The parties were required to maintain status quo and moreover the petitioner herein, has only challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation insofar as it was passed in Revision No.4364 (Ghammar Vs. Dwarka). 9. As far as the present petitioners are concerned, they are not aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as it relates to the other revision namely 4392, 4391 and 4356 which were also decided by the order of the same date i.e. 29.5.1985. It could not be informed as to against the said order dated 29.5.1985 passed in the three other revisions, any of the parties therein had filed any petition. Apparently, the order dated 29.5.1985 attains finality insofar as the other three revisions as mentioned above, are concerned. The dispute in the instant petition, is only in respect of revision no.4364. 10. It could not be informed as to against the said order dated 29.5.1985 passed in the three other revisions, any of the parties therein had filed any petition. Apparently, the order dated 29.5.1985 attains finality insofar as the other three revisions as mentioned above, are concerned. The dispute in the instant petition, is only in respect of revision no.4364. 10. As far as the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.5.1985 in the revision of Ghammar is concerned, it provided the plot alongwith trees. If this is examined in the light of the pleadings of the petitioner himself, it would reveal that the petitioner has not raised any claim insofar as the trees over plot no.1148 is concerned. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is clearly indicated by the petitioner that even though plot no.1148 was not the original (mool gata of private respondent no.4) but the fact remains that it is Ghammar who had claimed rights on the said plot insofar as the trees are concerned. The petitioner had indicated that there was a separate case pending between the parties relating to the trees. Further there is nothing on record to indicate that what was the nature of the said suit or the dispute and where the said proceedings are pending. More than three and a half decades are gone by, yet there is nothing on record to indicate that if at all any proceedings were pending since 1985 what was the logical conclusion of the said proceedings and moreover the petitioner has also not claimed any rights insofar as the trees are concerned. 11. In the light of the aforesaid, it could not be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how he is aggrieved coupled with the fact that what right of the petitioner has been prejudiced which may persuade this court to entertain the petition. In absence of any clear averment or pleading including the fact that it could not be demonstrated as to how the petitioner is aggrieved, this Court does not find that there is any error in the order insofar as the revision bearing no.4364 is concerned. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, granted earlier, if any, shall stand discharged. Costs are made easy.