CLR No.61 of 2008 H on ’ble Ta r u n Aga r wa la , J . Heard Mr. Bharat Tewari, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. M. C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent. A categorically finding of fact has emerged from the pleadings to the effect that the land on which the alleged construction has been made is a Nazul land and the ownership of this Nazul land is of the State Government. Consequently, it becomes irrelevant as to who is in possession of the land and / or who has made relevant construction. The revisionist is not the landlord and therefore, could not maintain a suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any error in the impugned order. The revision is dismissed. Dated 21.06.2010 LSR (Ta r u n Aga r wa la , J .)