Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 453 of 2008 Smt.Bhagirathi …………..Petitioner Versus Gaon Sabha Dhandhera through its Village Pradhan, Pargana and Tehsil-Roorkee,District Haridwar. …………….. Respondent. …………………….. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.C.Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J. This petition is directed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by Collector, Haridwar in restoration application No.01 of 2004, by which the order dated 27.02.2004 passed in Revision No.74 of 2004 preferred by Gaon Sabha was reviewed and the revision was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that notice was issued to the petitioner by the Tehsildar, Roorkee mentioning therein that the petitioner has illegally occupied the Gaon Sabha land which is recorded Banjar. The petitioner filed her objection on 28.09.2002 denying the averments made in the notice. Case was registered against the petitioner under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties adduced their evidence. The Assistant Collector recorded finding that the petitioner proved her possession prior to 30.06.1995. She is agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste and the land in question is not covered under the provision of Section 132 of the Act and quashed the notice on 30.05.2003. Against the said order the Gaon Sabha preferred a revision before the Collector. The said revision was dismissed on merit by the Collector vide its judgment and order dated 27.02.2004. Instead of challenging the order passed by Collector in revision, Gaon Sabha moved an application for review the order dated 27.02.2004. The revisional court allowed the review application, set aside the order dated 27.02.2004 and allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 29.11.2004. The petitioner was directed to handover the possession of the disputed land to the Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up in this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and is also landless agricultural Labourer and the petitioner has become bhumidhar by operation of law on the basis of the provisions of sub-Section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the Act and in view of Section 123(1) of the Act, the land settled in favour of the petitioners and the proceedings are barred under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. 5. The revisional court has fell into error in allowing the revision by taking note of amendment made in Section 123 and 122-B (4-F) of the Act, which was amended by U.P. Act No.9 of 1997 by Section 3 of the Act. Since the petitioner is agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste, is entitled for settlement of the land in her favour if she is in possession before May 1, 2002. The Assistant Collector found that the petitioner was in possession prior to 30.06.1995 and is doing agricultural over the land in question. It is clear that the petitioner has perfected her title under the provisions of sub-Section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the Act. Therefore, the revisional court committed illegality in set asiding the order of trial court. 6. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the order of Assistant Collector dated 30.05.2003 is affirmed. (P.C. Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh