IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 456 of 2001 (Old CMWP No. 6297 of 1994) Sri Karan Singh and others. … Petitioners. Versus Naresh son of Madu and others. … Respondents. Mr. M.S.Tyagi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service, none is present on behalf of the private respondents. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent No.10-State. Date March 5, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- 1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21-1-1994 (AnnexureNo. IV) passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Mandal, Meerut. 2. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Mandal, Meerut to cancel the allotment made in favour of the respondents no. 1 to 9. 3. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Award the cost of the petition. A perusal of the record shows that an application under Section 27(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960 (for short the Act) was filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, Meerut, for setting aside the allotment made in favour of the respondents. The learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut after hearing the for the petitioners as well as the respondents remanded the matter to be decided afresh by the Assistant Collector/ Sub Divisional Officer Roorkee on the ground that the allottees have moved the application that they do not want 2 to take the land and they may have informed the Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter, fresh allotment be made by him. Sub-Section (4) of Section 27 of the Act reads as under:- “(4) The Commissioner may of his own motion and shall, on the application of any aggrieved person, enquire into such settlement and if he is satisfied that the settlement is irregular he may after notice to the person in whose favour such settlement is made to show cause- (i) cancel the settlement and the lease, if any, and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any instrument, the rights, title and interest of the person in whose favour such settlement was made or lease executed or any person claiming through his in such land shall cease, and such land shall revert to the State Government; and (ii) direct that every person holding or retaining possession thereof may be evicted, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision of law clearly shows that the power to cancel the allotment of the ceiling land vests with the Commissioner only. On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to the allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21-1-1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, Meerut is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal is directed to decide the case on merits after hearing all the parties. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP