IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 536 of 2009 Jal Singh ………….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal and Ors. ………….Respondents Sri B.B. sharma,learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State. Dated : October 29, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Present writ petition is filed, challenging the order dated 24.02.2004 passed by DDC/Addl. Collector, Haridwar in Revision No. 344/2002/03 Jal Singh Vs. Gram Sabha and Others and also challenging the order dated 3rd October, 2002 passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in appeal No. 809 Jal Singh Vs. Gram Sabha. Petitioenr further seeks mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to allot the agricultural land Gatta No. 131/2 situated in Gram Sabha, Bejholi Roorkee. Brief facts of the case are that Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3r October, 2002 directed the eviction of the petitioner from land Gata No. 131 measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa 10 biswansi against which an appeal No. 809 was preferred before Appellate Authority/Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Haridwar at Roorkee which was dismissed vide order 27.03.2003 having observed property found in possession of the appellant is a public utility land being used as Gohor/Rasta. It was further observed by the Appellate Authority that over the public utility land, no rights can be given to any person either under section 122B (4F) or under section 197 of UPZALR Act. Petitioner feeling aggrieved from the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 27.03.2003, preferred revision No. 344/2002-03 before Dy. Director (Consolidation)/ADM, Haridwar under section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which came to be dismissed on 24.02.2004. However, while dismissing the revision, Revisional Court has observed, since petitioner is a scheduled caste landless labourer, hence Dy. Collector should proceed to grant Assami Patta in favour of the petitioner over any suitable land. However learned Revisional Court observed that since, land in dispute is a Gohor/Rasta, the public utility land, falling under section 132 of UPZALR Act, hence, no rights can be given to the petitioner under section 122B (4F) of the Act. Having heard Mr. B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, I find that both the courts below were within their jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders. It is settled position of law that land covered under section 132 of UPZALR Act cannot be allotted to any eligible person under section 197 of UPZALR Act. If land covered under section 132 of the Act cannot be allotted under section 197 of the Act then it can also be held that person found in possession of the land covered under section 132 of the Act cannot be given any protection under section 122B(4F) of the Act. Moreover, Section 122B (4F) reads as under:- “122B - Powers of the Land Management Committee and the Collector:-- (1) ………………….. (2) ………………….. (3) ………………….. (4) …………………… (4-A) ……………………. (4-B) ……………………. (4-C) ……………………. (4-D) ……………………. (4-E) ……………………. (4-F) – Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before [June 3, 1995] and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195.” Language of Section 122B (4F) also suggest that no protection is available to the persons in possession of land falling under section 132 of the Act. From the perusal of the judgments of the courts below and record, I find since petitioner is found in possession of the public utility land i.e. Gohor/Rasta, hence he is not entitled for the protection under section 122B(4F). Since learned Revisional Court, taking sympathetical view, directed Dy. Collector to grant Assamy Patta of suitable land to the petitioner under Scheduled Caste Landless Labour Scheme, hence petitioner should not have any grievance. In view of this, impugned orders do not call for any interference. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Alok Singh, J.) 29.10.2009 Ravi