G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE Executive Engineer. P. W. D. , Deoria issued an advertisement inviting tenders upto 28. 2. 2001 for letting out the right to realise tolls on Baikunthpur Ghat on Chhotigandak river. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid tender notice. ( 2 ) THE seven petitioners claim that they are mallah/nishad by caste and have been running a ferry from time immemorial over the aforesaid ghat. They further claim that Baikunthpur Ghat was being managed by the fore-fathers of the petitioners from ages and their families are depended upon the same. In support of their claim, the petitioners rely upon khatauni of 1359-fasli of village Baikunthpur where the name of Bhujawan and others were recorded over Khata No. 270. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are descendants of Bhujawan. The petitioners further rely upon an order dated 18. 9. 1953 passed by the District Land Reforms Officer. Deoria and according to them this order recognises the right of Bhujawan to run a ferry. The contention of the petitioners is that the ownership of the ferry vests with them and as such, the Stale has got no right to interfere in their management and to let out the right to collect tolls on the said ferry. ( 3 ) COPY of the order dated 18. 9. 1953 passed by the District Land Reforms Officer, Deoria (filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is an incomplete copy. It is also not certified copy of the said order. A reading of the order shows that Sabhapati of the Gram Panchayat, Balkunthpur, had given some report against Bhujawan and others regarding management of the Baikunthpur Ghat. The order recites that "existing rights of the contractors of ferries will continue according to paragraph 8 (f) of Revenue (A) Department G. O. No. 1301-I-A/450-1950 dated March 20, 1952 and the existing contractor will continue. " Towards the bottom of the order, there is an endorsement--copy forwarded to the existing contractor Sri Bhujawan to deposit due amount in treasury at once. This order shows that Bhujawan was working in the capacity of a contractor and it does not at all establish any proprietary right of Bhujawan over the ferry. " Towards the bottom of the order, there is an endorsement--copy forwarded to the existing contractor Sri Bhujawan to deposit due amount in treasury at once. This order shows that Bhujawan was working in the capacity of a contractor and it does not at all establish any proprietary right of Bhujawan over the ferry. The direction in the order to the effect that contractor Bhujawan should deposit the amount completely negatives the case of the petitioners that they had any hind of ownership right over the ferry. ( 4 ) SECTION 6 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) gives consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State and relevant part of this section is being reproduced below : "consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State.--When the notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensure in the area to which the notification relates, namely : (a) all rights title and interest of all the intermediaries (i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren ). grove-land, forests whether within or outside village boundaries, trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries, tanks, ponds, water-channels, ferries, pathways, abadt sites, hats, bazars and melas (other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 18 apply) and. (ii) in all sub-soils in such estates including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not, shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. " the notification under Section 4 was Issued on July 1, 1952. Thereafter, all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate in such area including ferries ceased and vested in the State of U. P. free from all encumbrances. Ferry is a passage over water by boat and is a continuation of the highway from one side of the water over which it passes to the other. Thereafter, all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate in such area including ferries ceased and vested in the State of U. P. free from all encumbrances. Ferry is a passage over water by boat and is a continuation of the highway from one side of the water over which it passes to the other. The ferry is a right to keep a boat for the carriage of persons or their belongings in consideration of a reasonable toll. It is referred as a link between two highways on either side of the river. If ferry was part of the zamindari of the intermediary, it vested with the State on July 1, 1952. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel has contended that Section 4 of Northern India Ferries Act, 1878, contemplates a public ferry and a private ferry and the State has no right to let out the right to collect tolls on private ferry. Section 4 (b) of this Act no doubt gives power to the State government to take possession of private ferry and to declare it to be a public ferry. However, it may be noticed that this Act was enacted in 1878 and as the preamble of the Act shows, the object of the Act is to regulate ferries in Northern India. The U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms act was enacted In 1950 and the vesting as contemplated by Section 4 of the said Act took place on July 1, 1952. The Northern India Ferries Act can be of no assistance to the petitioners for the purpose of establishing their title over the ferry in dispute in view of the vesting of the ferry with the State under Section 6 of the Act. ( 6 ) HAVING considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the material on record, we are satisfied that the petitioners have failed to establish any title over the ferry in question and, therefore, they cannot object to the advertisement issued inviting tenders for giving the right to collect tolls on the same. ( 7 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage. .