HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 474/2006 (M/S) Behari Lal …Petitioner. Versus Consolidation Officer and others. …Respondents. Shri B.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Dated: April 26, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot the Gata No. 163, situated in village Majahidpur, Sattywal, Pargana-Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar in favour of the petitioner and to enter his name in the revenue records. Petitioner has further sought a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment of respondents (annexed as annexure nos. 2,3 & 4 to the writ petition). 1. Brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Majahidpur, Sattywal, Pargana-Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Cast (Chamar) category. It has been averred in the petition that the Village Management Committee of the said village passed a resolution on 17.02.1987 that Khasra Khatoni Gata No. 163 of the said village be allotted to the petitioner. It is asserted in the petition that the petitioner filed a case No. 327 under Section 9Ka (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee 2 (West) for allotting the above Gata No. 163 to the petitioner under the scheme of the family planning launched by the State Government for encouraging sterilization. The Consolidating Officer, Roorkee dismissed the case of the petitioner vide its order dated 17.02.2004. Being aggrieved with the order of Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed appeal no. 447 under Section 11 (1) of the Act, before the Settlement of Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 15.02.2005. Aggrieved with the order dated 15.02.2005, the petitioner preferred a revision No. 646 of 2004-05 under Section 48 of the Act before the D.D.C./Addl. Collector, District Haridwar, but the same was also rejected. 2. The respondents/State have filed a counter affidavit in which, interalia, it has been stated that the Land Management Committee, Hajahidpur, Sattiwala passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner on 17.09.1987, but the resolution was not approved by the Competent Authority because the petitioner due to holding more than 31/8 area of land could not obtain Patta, as he was not entitled for the same. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that the Courts below have given concurrent findings against the petitioner holding therein that the land in question bearing plot no. 163 is recorded as river in revenue records, as such the said land is purely public utility land over which no right is accrued to the petitioner. 3. Heard Shri B.S. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that claim of the petitioner for allotment of land was based on the resolution dated 17.02.1987 of the Village Land Management Committee, village Majahidpur, Sattywal, Pargana-Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, by which it was resolved that the persons, including the petitioner, who have conducted family planning operation, shall be allotted land within the Gram Shabha, as per the family planning scheme. 5. From perusal of the record it reveals that the petitioner, after such resolution of the Village Land Management Committee, did not approach to the concerned Asstt. Collector 1st Class/S.D.M, on the other hand, he moved application under Section 9Ka (2) of the Act, before the Consolidation Officer and has chosen wrong forum. The petitioner was not in possession of any land, as no land was allotted in his favour. He wrongly approached to the Consolidating Officer under Section 9Ka (2) of the Act. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. It will be open for the petitioner to approach Appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances. 7. No order as to costs. 8. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (V.K. Bist, J.) 26.04.2010 NCM: