IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 212 (M/S) of 2008 Vedpal S/o Tula - Petitioner. Versus Collector Haridwar and others - Respondents. Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. ) Heard Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder, on behalf of the respondents. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 13-7- 2007 and 28-12-2007 passed by Tehsildar /Assistant Collector, Laksar and Collector, District Haridwar respectively. According to the petitioner he is owner in possession of Khasra No. 336 (new no. 500-561), since 5th July, 1950. He had obtained the land in question through then Zamindar. In the year 2005 on the report of Halka Lekhpal suit under Section 122-B U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act has been instituted against the petitioner which was decided against the petitioner vide order dated 13.7.2007. The petitioner preferred a revision before Collector Lakshar and the revisional court without considering the material facts on record dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 28.12.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is residing over the land in question along with family members, as his parental house is situated over there. The land was obtained from a Zamindar and the eviction of the petitioner from land in question has wrongly been passed. I have perused the impugned order passed by Tehsildar /Assistant Collector Laksar. He has recorded a categorical finding that the land in question is recorded as ‘Zohar’ in class 6(1) in revenue records which is a land of public utility. 2 The Assistant Collector also mentioned this fact in his judgment that parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. On behalf of Gaon Sabha Lekhpal of the area was examined. He has stated on oath that disputed Khasra No. 336 area 1.532 hectare is recorded ‘Johar’ in class-6(1) in revenue record, which is a land of public utility, out of which on 0.025 hectare Vedpal has illegally constructed a house since 1412 Fasli. On the other hand Vedpal in his statement has deposed that his house is constructed on Khasra No. 336( new No. 500 - 561). The land belonged to Chaudhary Bharat Singh and Charat Singh. In the year 1950 his father purchased the land. In his cross-examination he has admitted that in 1962 consolidation took place in village Khedi Mubarikpur. In the consolidation proceeding rights of parties on a particular land are decided, but it appears that the petitioner had illegally occupied the land in dispute and that may be reason that he had not taken any step in order to get his rights over the land in dispute during consolidation proceeding and the land is recorded as ‘Johar’ in class-6(1) in revenue record. After the commencement of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act all estates situated within the territory of the State vests with the State as per provision of Section 4 of the Act and certain land vests in Gaon Sabha under the provisions of Section 117 of Z.A. & L.R. Act. Further Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, includes ‘Zohar’(tank) in the category of land of public utility and no rights accrue over it. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi and others, reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 496, has held that Pond (talab) having fallen into disuse because of drying up, but some portion covered by water in rainy season, no part of it can be allotted to anyone as abadi site for purposes of building houses and revenue authorities should have taken note of drying pond and redeveloped it so as to prevent ecological disaster. The Hon’ble Apex Court issued direction to vacate the land and respondents were permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. 3 Therefore, in view of above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. Dated: 10-03-2011 ( B.S. Verma, J. ) ISB 4