WPMS No.3574 of 2001 (Old No.437 of 1994) Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. K. N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.5. It transpires that on the basis of an auction held by the respondent authority, the petitioner, being the highest bidder, was allotted a patta coupled with the fact that the petitioner was already in possession. The respondents, being aggrieved by the auction in favour of the petitioner, filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was allowed and the matter was remitted again to the Collector to decide the question of grant of patta afresh after considering the latest nazul policy of the State Government. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court is of the opinion that the order of the Commissioner does not suffer from any error of law. Admittedly, the land is a nazul land and the lease of such nazul land can only be done in accordance with the policy laid down by the State Government. Since this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Collector while granting the patta in favour of the petitioner, the court does not find any error in the order passed by the Commissioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. It would be open to the petitioner to persuade the authority that the patta should be granted in his favour in view of the fact that he is in possession of the land and that the adjoining land had already been made freehold in favour of the petitioner. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 27.08.2010 LSR