IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 5548 OF 2001 Dharma …………….Petitioner. Versus District Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. ………….Respondents. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent no. 1 to 4. None appears for rest of the respondents. 8th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order- dated 25.4.2001 & 25.4.2001 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 9 & 5 respectively). 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is in the cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 444 M Area 2-0-0 Bigha from last twenty years and he has no other land except the said land and he acquired the non-transferable rights of a Bhumidhar over the aforesaid land. Proceedings under Section 122-B started and the petitioner filed objection before the respondent no. 3 stating therein that the petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid land from last twenty years and as such he has become the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Thereafter, Respondent no. 3 / Consolidation Officer, Roorkee (West First) declared the petitioner the Bhuidhar of Khasra No. 444 M area 2-0-0 Bigha situated at Village Mohanpur giving the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Zamindari 2 Abolition and Land Reforms Act vide his order dated 15.4.1998. 3. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the said order, respondents no. 6 and 7 filed an appeal being Appeal No. 834 Neeraj Vs. Dharma. In the aforesaid appeal, the respondents took plea that the aforesaid land is the land of public utility and therefore, the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act cannot be given. The appeal was allowed vide order-dated 25.4.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent no. 1 against the order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 stating therein that the respondent no. 2 has wrongly passed the order. The said revision was also dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2001. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 petitioner and the proceedings are barred under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that since the land in dispute was a Nala, which is a land of public utility, therefore, Bhumidhari with non-transferable rights cannot accrue. 3 7. The revisional & the appellate Court have fell into error in passing the aforesaid orders by rejecting the order passed by the trial Court by recording a finding that the order has been passed by the trial Court without impleading Gaon Sabha a party in the suit, has passed the order benefiting Dharma under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. A perusal of Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act does not show word Nala, therefore, it cannot be said to be the land of public utility. Since the petitioner is agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste, is entitled for settlement of land in his favour, if he is in possession before May 1, 2002. The Consolidation Officer found that the petitioner was in possession prior to 3rd June, 1995 and is doing agriculture over the land in question. It is clear that the petitioner has perfected his title under the provisions of sub-Section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the Act. Therefore, the revisional court and the appellate court have committed illegality in setting aside the order of the trial Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.4.1998 is affirmed. (P.C. Verma, J.) 8.8.2008 Rathour