IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION No.1083 of 2009 Smt. Jagwati ………….. Petitioner Versus Gram Sabha, Village Shivdaspur ………… Respondent Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Dated: July 14, 2009 Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.4.2001 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar (Annexure No.4 to the petition) and order dated 21.10.2008 passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal (Annexure No.5 to the petition). The husband of the petitioner preferred a suit u/s 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The suit preferred by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed by Assistant Collector, First Class/Addl. SDM, Haridwar vide order dated 24.4.2001. Against that order dated 24.4.2001, the husband of the petitioner preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the order of Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal on 21.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and orders dated 24.4.2001 and 21.10.2008, the petitioner has come up in this Court. The husband of the petitioner also preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPMS No.207/2009. However, that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh by the order of this Court dated 17.2.2009. The petitioner before this Court has not impleaded the State as a party and has only made Gram Sabha as the respondent, though before the courts below, the State was impleaded as party. However, Section 229-B of the Act specifically provides that it is necessary to impleaded the State as a party. Section 331(4) of the Act specifically provides that a second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid. In Column No.5 of the Schedule II as provided under the Act, it is specifically provided that against the order of Assistant Collector First Class, the First Appeal shall lie before the Commissioner and in Column No.6 of the aforesaid Schedule, it is provided that the Second Appeal shall lie before Board, here in the State of Uttarakhand before the Chief Revenue Commissioner. However, the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of Second Appeal, as provided under the Act, has directly come up in this Court assailing the order dated 24.4.2001 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class and order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal. For the reasons as discussed above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 14, 2009 Rajeev Dang