Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 36 of 2010. Chatar Pal, 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 May 20, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31- 3-2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar (for short DDC), order dated 18-3-2005 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar, Camp Roorkee and also to quash the order dated 6-12-2003 passed by Consolidation Officer Roorkee (West) (Annexure Nos. 7,5 and 3 to the petition). According to the petitioner, he is a member of the Scheduled Caste and is a landless person. Before 1985 petitioner was in possession of plot No. 378/5 area 5-15-0. In the year 1995, consolidation proceedings were on in village Imlikheda within Tehsil Roorkee and in the Khatauni issued in the consolidation proceedings, plot no. 378 was entered as DARAD (parti land). The petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer claiming the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act). The Consolidation Officer did not find favour with the petitioner and rejected the objections by his order dated 19- 12-1998. 2 It appears that the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer in view of the order dated 10-10-2001 passed by the D.D.C. in Revision No. 45/2001-2002, Raj Kumar and others Vs. Char Pal and others, under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer again heard both the parties and ultimately he came to the conclusion that the land is recorded as Darad, therefore, in view of the provisions of 132 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Section 122B (4F) of the Act and by order dated 6-12-2003, the objection of the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 6-12-2003, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, bearing Appeal No. 738/1183 of 2003 before the SOC. The SOC after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence, has held that the land in dispute of plot No. 378/5 is recorded as DARAD in the revenue records and the land being a public utility land is covered under Section 132 of the Act, therefore, no rights can be given to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 132 of the Act. The learned SOC also concluded that benefits of Section 122B(4F) of the Act can be extended to the petitioner in respect of the land falling under Section 117 of the Act. The disputed land does not fall under Section 117 of the Act. The learned SOC upheld the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 18-3-2005. Further aggrieved by the order dated 18-3-2005, the petitioner preferred Revision No. 649 of 2005 before the D.D.C., who also did not find favour with the petitioner. The D.D.C. also found that the disputed land being public utility land is covered under Section 132 of the Act, benefit of Section 122B(4F) of the Act cannot be given to the petitioner. The revision was ultimately dismissed by order dated 31-3-2009 passed by the D.D.C., which gave rise to the present writ petition. 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction is very limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-evaluate the evidence of the parties. Only the perversity and jurisdictional error can be seen. For a just decision of the case, a reference to the provision of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act is necessary, which reads as under:- “(4-F) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub- sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes is in occupation of any land vested in a Gram Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before May 1, 2002 and the land so occupied together with land if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and (he shall be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195 and it shall not be necessary for him to institute a suit for declaration of his right as bhumidhar with non- transferable rights of that land.” From a bare perusal of the provision of Section 122-B(4- F) of the Act, it is evident that an agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes is only entitled to claim rights in respect of any land vested in a Gram Sabha under Section 117 but not being the land under Section 132 of the Act. In the case at hand, it is established by the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the disputed land is recorded Darad in the revenue records and it cannot be said that Darad does not fall within the ambit of Section 132 of the Act. In this view of the matter, bhumidhari rights cannot be 4 accrued to the petitioner in respect of a public utility land. Besides, the petitioner has nowhere stated in the memo of writ petition that the disputed land is vested in the Gram Sabha under Section 117 of the Act. I have carefully perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The Consolidation Officer, the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. after having considered the provisions of law have recorded their independent finding that the disputed land is covered by the provision of Section 132 of the Act. In any view of the matter, the requirement of Section 122-B(4-F) does not appear to have been fulfilled by the petitioner to substantiate his claim. For the discussion above, I am of the view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest error of law or any perversity. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 5