IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 229 of 2004 Amar Singh son of late Sukkhan R/O Village Niranjanpur, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar and another. ………Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal through Collector Haridwar, District Haridwar and another. ……..Respondents. Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1. Date:- November 18, 2008. Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.5.2002 and 27.2.2004 contained as annexure nos. 7 and 8 to the writ petition passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Laksar and the learned Collection Haridwar respectively. The brief facts giving rise to the writ petition is that the Tehsildar issued notice in Form 49-A of the Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioners had filed objection before the Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector wherein it has been stated that the land in dispute does not belong to Gaon Sabha and the notice 49A is defective and furthermore the land is in possession of the petitioner for more than 20 years and is an old abadi of the petitioner. The petitioner no. 2 has also filed separate objection on the same ground and also claimed benefit of Section 13 of Z.A. & L.R. Act. On behalf of the Gaon Sabha, the Lekhpal was examined to prove the fact that the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha. After hearing the petitioners and the Gaon Sabha, the learned Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector has held, vide his order dated 31.5.2003 that the land of plot no. 96 M of Village Niranjanpur was reserved during the consolidation proceedings for abadi and the petitioners were not found to be the eligible person for the allotment of the abadi land. The Petitioner Amar Singh is serving as Village Development Officer and Omwati is his wife. Both are living together and do not fall in the category of landless agricultural labour and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 123 of U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act and passed the order for eviction of the petitioner and imposed compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred revision before the Collector, Haridwar. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners as well for the Gaon Sabha, the revision was dismissed on the same ground. Hence, this writ petition. In reply to the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the land plot no. 96 minjubla and they have constructed a kaccha house and later on pacca house on the land in dispute without any allotment in their favour. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and for the State and after perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, the undisputed facts are that the plot no. 96 M was reserved for the abadi purpose in the previous consolidation proceedings and belongs to Gaon Sabha. Secondly it has not been disputed by the petitioners that the plot was never allotted to them. Thirdly no resolution has been passed in their favour. Merely on the basis of possession and being Scheduled caste ‘chamar’ they are not entitled to get the benefit of Section 123 (1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and are not entitled to retain the possession of the land in dispute. The scope of writ jurisdiction is limited. The learned Assistant Collector on the basis of the evidence has held that the petitioners are not landless agricultural labours. It is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petitioners never dared to examine themselves before the court below and there is no statement on oath in support of their objection filed before the Assistant Collector. The petitioners could be best witness to contradict the allegation made against them in the notice form no. 49-A issued by the Tehsildar. The statement of Lekhpal was not controverted by the petitioners before the Assistant Collector on oath, therefore, the presumption against the petitioners under Section 114 of the Evidence Act can safely be drawn against the petitioner. The Assistant Collector as well as the Collector Haridwar have rightly held that the petitioners are not the landless agricultural labour and are not entitled to the benefit of 123 (1) of the said Act because they do not fall under the eligibility criteria of allotment in their favour. So far as the compensation part is concerned, the ends of justice would be subserved if compensation of Rs. 1000/- is imposed against the petitioners instead of Rs. 60,000/-. The writ petition is devoid of merit so far as the eviction part is concerned and is liable to be partly allowed. So far it relates to compensation part, the petitioners shall pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- instead of Rs. 60,000/- as decided by the court on 31.5.2003. The writ is partly allowed. The eviction part of the impugned judgments is upheld. Interim order dated 1.4.2004 stands vacated. All the pending applications stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) Dated :18.11.2008 RMY