JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally today itself at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners have prayed for issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 3-3-2005 and 4-4-2007 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively (Annexure Nos.6 and 9). By order dated 3-3-2005 the Assistant Collector 1st Class/S.D.M. Dehradun has declared land measuring 0.528 Hectare out of the suit land as Abadi, as mentioned in the impugned order. The revision preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 44-2007 passed in Revision No. 7/2004-05. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that initially the suit under Section 176 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short Z.A.& L.R Act) was filed by respondent no.3 Bhangu Singh for partition of holdings. The suit is being contested by the petitioner as well as other private respondents. 4. In the written statement filed by the petitioner it was contended in paragraph no. 14 that the major part of the suit land is covered by Abadi hence the suit for partition was not maintainable. 5. The learned trial court framed Issue whether Abadi exists in the disputed land or not. The Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub Division before whom the suit for partition is pending for disposal called for the report from the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar, in turn, further directed the Supervisor Kanungo to submit his report regarding the existence of Abadi in the disputed land. The report was submitted by Supervisor Kanungo dated 29-1-2005 and Tahsildar forwarded the same to the Assistant Collector concerned. 6. Before the Assistant Collector both the parties have filed their objection against the report dated 29-1-2005 disputing the existence of Abadi over certain area. The Assistant Collector concerned after hearing both the parties had declared land measuring 0.528 Hectare of Khasara Nos. 36,39,41,47,59,64,141/4,144/1,146/1,146/3,148/1,164/1 and 109/1 Abadi area (other than agricultural land) as detailed in paragraph no. 3 of the impugned order dated 3-3-2005. 7. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Collector concerned, the defendant-petitioners preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, which was registered as Revision No. 7/ 2004-05 Balbeer Singh and others Vs. Bhangu Singh and others. 36,39,41,47,59,64,141/4,144/1,146/1,146/3,148/1,164/1 and 109/1 Abadi area (other than agricultural land) as detailed in paragraph no. 3 of the impugned order dated 3-3-2005. 7. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Collector concerned, the defendant-petitioners preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, which was registered as Revision No. 7/ 2004-05 Balbeer Singh and others Vs. Bhangu Singh and others. The revision was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division may, suo motu declare the land as such, which is not being used for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming under Section 143 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Prabha Noliyal, has vehemently urged that no opportunity was given by the Assistant Collector to the petitioners to adduce evidence against the report of Supervisor Kanungo, although objections were filed by both the parties in the suit. It has been submitted that only on the basis of the report of Supervisor Kanungo and the Tehsildar, the Assistant Collector has declared Abadi under Section 143 of the said Act. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that there was no application under Section 143 of the said Act before the Assistant Collector, rather he was trying the suit for partition under Section 176 and was not dealing with the application under Section 143 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act, therefore, the action taken by the Assistant Collector is without jurisdiction and he has committed jurisdiction error. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 Sri M.S.Tyagi and Sri Nagesh Agarwal have submitted that under Section 143 of the Act, the Assistant Collector is not required to act upon an application and the Assistant Collector may suo motu declare Abadi after obtaining report under Rule 135 of the Z.A. Rules. The Assistant Collector has already considered the provisions of Rule 135 of the said Rules and found them to have been followed, therefore, the impugned order dated 3-3-2005 being legal deserves to be maintained. 12. Relevant extract of Section 143 of the ZA & L.R. Act reads as follows: 143. The Assistant Collector has already considered the provisions of Rule 135 of the said Rules and found them to have been followed, therefore, the impugned order dated 3-3-2005 being legal deserves to be maintained. 12. Relevant extract of Section 143 of the ZA & L.R. Act reads as follows: 143. Use of a holding for industrial or residential purposes.- (.1) Where bhumidhar with transferable rights, uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division may, suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, make a declaration to that effect. (I-A) Where a declaration under subsection (1) has to be made in respect of a part of the holding, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division may in the manner prescribed demarcate such part for the purposes of such declaration. (2) Upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub-section (1) the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to the bhumidhar with transferable rights, with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject. 13. In view of the above provision of law as laid down under Section 143(1) of the Act, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no application of Bhumidhars before the Assistant Collector and the action taken by him is not tenable is misconceived. The Assistant Collector can very much exercise power under Section 143 of the Act suo motu as well. 14. It is pertinent to mention that in the partition suit, the co-tenure holders are parties and the objections were filed by the defendant-petitioners and there is no dispute to this fact that there is Abadi over certain portion of the disputed land. There is only a dispute as to extent of Abadi and according to the petitioners, adequate opportunity to adduce evidence was not afforded. 15. So far as the first limb of argument that the Assistant Collector could not have acted suo motu to declare the land as Abadi under Section 143 of the Act is concerned, the same is not tenable. 15. So far as the first limb of argument that the Assistant Collector could not have acted suo motu to declare the land as Abadi under Section 143 of the Act is concerned, the same is not tenable. I have held above that the Assistant Collector has jurisdiction suo motu to proceed to declare the land as Abadi. 16. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that adequate opportunity was not given to adduce evidence before passing the order of declaration and the objection of the petitioners was rejected on the same day when it was filed. In reply, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the report of Supervisor Kanungo is dated 29-1-2005 while the petitioners filed objection on 3-3-2005, which has been dealt with by the Assistant Collector, therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to them. The Assistant Collector had obtained the report from the Supervisor Kanungo regarding the spot position, which too was scrutinized by him. It was also submitted that Assistant Collector found the report of Supervisor Kanungo in accordance with Rule 135 of the Z.A. Rules accompanied by site plan. Both the parties were heard by the Assistant Collector. On the basis of evidence, it was found that the land measuring 0.528 Hectare was not being used for purposes connected with agriculture and ultimately, the order impugned was passed by order dated 3-3-2005. 17. The petitioners have annexed the copy of objection filed before the Assistant Collector as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. The only objection raised therein is that there is some more Abadi in Khasra No. 61,302/1,222/1 and there exists Abadi of defendants and others. However, this fact has not been disputed by the petitioners that the Abadi which has been shown in Supervisor Kanungo report does not exists on spot. 18. The Assistant Collector in exercise of suo motu power under Section 143 of the Act has declared 0.528 hectare land as Abadi land and this power' has been given to the Assistant Collector concerned by the legislature. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary is misconceived and the Assistant Collector did not commit any manifest error of law in passing the impugned order date 3-3-2005 thereby declaring 0.528 hectare land as Abadi out of the land in dispute. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary is misconceived and the Assistant Collector did not commit any manifest error of law in passing the impugned order date 3-3-2005 thereby declaring 0.528 hectare land as Abadi out of the land in dispute. The revisional Court also confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector and found no infirmity in the order declaring the land Abadi as per provisions of Section 143 of the Act read with Rule 135 of the Z.A. Rules. 19. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. 20. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. 21. All applications stand disposed of.