IN THE HIGH CORUT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 27012 of 1998) Kamla and others …. Petitioners Versus District Collector, Dehradun and others …. Respondents & Writ Petition No. 622of 2001 (M/S) Deep Mala & others … Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand, through Collector, Dehradun & Ors….. Respondents & Writ Petition No. 2231 of 2001 (M/S) Vimla & others … Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …. Respondents & Writ Petition No. 2243 of 2001 (M/S) Amar Singh & others …. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2001 (M/S) Smt. Kamla Devi Barthwal …. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Mr. V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. H.M.Raturi, learned counsel for the State None appears for rest of the respondents. 8 th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Since in all the above mentioned writ petitions, common question is involved, therefore, all are decided by a common judgment. 2. Present writ petitions are directed against the orders, whereby the lease granted in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled by the Additional Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. From the perusal of the evidence adduced by both the parties as well as judgment and order passed by the Courts below, it appears that the land, lease of which granted in favour of the petitioners, clearly falls under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Ablition and Land Reforms Act being a land in the river belt, therefore, no patta could have been granted in favour of the petitioners. 4. In view of the above, since the land falls under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act being a land of river belt, therefore, the orders of cancellation of patta is perfectly justified, deserve to be confirmed and require no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, writ petitions are dismissed for having no merit. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma J.) 8.8.2008 Rathour