IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2002 of 2001. (Old CMWP No. 35483 of 2000) Smt. Ram Pyari wife of late Sangat Singh and 3 others. … Petitioners. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Garhwal Region, District Dehradun and others. ..Respondents. None appeared for the petitioners. Sri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Date November 26, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. None is present for the petitioners. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10-8-1993 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dehradun as well as the order dated 28-8-1998 passed by Additional Collector (Administration) Dehradun (Annexure No. 3) and the order dated 13- 7-2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Garhwal Division (Annexure No. 5). Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are claiming themselves to be Bhumidhars with transferable rights of plot nos. 826, 827, 830, 832, 833 and 836. A water channel (gule) passes through the plots of the petitioners, which helps in irrigation to the plots of the petitioners and other persons of the village. It is stated that the water channel passes through various plots including the plot no. 828, area 0.235 Hectare and similarly there is a Dhang, which helps in the protection of plot nos. 836, 838 and 834. According to the petitioners, the respondent nos. 4 and 5, by playing fraud on the officials of the revenue authorities got themselves allotted 0.15 acre land each of plot no. 828 and 835. It is further stated in the writ petition that plot nos. 828 and 835 are public utility land, hence the Sub Divisional Officer has cancelled the names of respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 27-4-1989 treating the same to be public utility land. Later-on, the land was again allotted to them on 10-8- 1993. Against the arbitrary allotment, late Sri Sangat Singh, husband of petitioner no. 1 Ram Pyari and father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, moved an application No. 2/1993-94 before the Additional Collector Dehradun under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Additional Collector rejected the application of late Sangat Singh vide order dated 28-8-1998. During the pendency of the application, Sri Sangat Singh died in the year 1994. The petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 28-8-1998. The revision too was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13-7-2000, hence this writ petition. The only ground on which the petitioners have challenged the impugned allotment order is that the plot nos. 828 and 835 being public utility land cannot be allotted. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 and 5 has contended that the land of plot no. 828, which was earlier gule and plot No. 835 (Dhang) were not used for the public purposes, hence the learned Sub Divisional Officer vide his order No. 35/90-91 dated 13-8- 1991 changed the Class of the land on the ground that the land was not being used for public purpose and recorded as Banjar in Class 5. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as the impugned orders. The learned Additional Commissioner in his order dated 13-7-2000 has given a categorical finding that the nature and class of the land has been changed vide order dated 13-8- 1991 and the land is recorded Banjar. This fact was also verified from the Khatauni, paper no. 58 to 61 of the Allotment File and it was also held that in plot no. 835, there are Eucalyptus trees recorded in the Khasra. The learned Additional Collector in allotting the land in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has not committed any error of law. After the order dated 13-8-1991 having been passed, the ground that the land is public utility land, as raised in the writ petition, cannot be accepted. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 11-8-2000 passed by this Court is vacated. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP