IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 35 of 2010. Atar Singh S/O Nirmal Singh, R/O Village Imlikheda, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Collector Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. Gram Sabha Village Imlikheda through its Pradhan, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …Respondents. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondent no.1. Date April 12, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28- 11-2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar (for short DDC), order dated 18-3-2005 and 7-12-2001 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar, Camp Roorkee and also to quash the order dated 22-11-1999 passed by Consolidation Officer Roorkee (West) (Annexure Nos. 7,5,4 and 2 to the petition). According to the petitioner, he and his brother are members of Scheduled Caste and are landless persons. The petitioner was in possession of plot nos. 773/24 area 3-8-0, plot no. 773/32 area 7-1-0 and 773/41 area 4-10-0 of Khata No. 631. Consolidation proceedings were on in village Imlikheda in the year 1995. The petitioner filed objections claiming the benefit lof Section 122B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act). The objections were heard by the Consolidartion Officer but he did not find favour with the petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 22-11-1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SOC concerned. The appellate court 2 also did not find favour with the appellant-petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 7-12-2001. This order was passed without hearing the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed restoration application. It appears that the SOC has considered the appeal on merits and he did not find any force in the contention of the petitioner and ultimately dismissed the restoration application by order dated 18- 3-2005. Further aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2001 and order dated 18-3-2005, the petitioner preferred revision before the DDC, which was ultimately dismissed by order dated 28-11-2008. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the land in question is a public utility land and is recorded in Class-6 (River) in the revenue record and the land is covered under Section 132 of the Act. The learned Additional C.S.C. urged that the impugned orders have been rightly passed against the petitioner. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of rival parties, I am of the considered view that the land in question is covered under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act). It is not disputed that the land recorded as river is a public utility land, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act. The orders, under challenge in the present writ petition, have been passed by the courts below on appraisal of evidence. The impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest error of law or perversity. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 16-2-2010 is vacated. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3 4