JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to declare the village Ransali as revenue village, regularize their lagaan and also regularize their names in the revenue record of the allotted land. 3. According to the petitioner, they are refugee from Punjab (now Pakistan) and were initially settled at Gangakhadar Colony, Hastinapur, District Meerut, U.P. Thereafter on account of floods and destructions caused to their allotted land they were migrated and were allotted land at Village Ransali, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar in pursuance of the order of the Administrative Officer, Vide No. Memo-Nil/X-date 13.05.1961 and Memo No. 127 dated 01.01.1960. Since then they are living in the village Ransali, Tehsil Sitarganj. 4. It is further stated that vide Notification No. 5-59/14-B published in U.P. Gazette dated 25.12.1965 total land of about 3379.00 acres of village Ransali was declared under the reserve forest. Thereafter the name of the petitioners were discontinued and land revenue was not realized from them. 5. It emerges out from the facts of the case that names of petitioners have been discontinued after the land was declared as reserve forest, vide said notification dated 25.12.1965. In writ jurisdiction, no such direction can be given to the revenue authorities to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue record and realize land revenue from them, since their names have been struck off due to declaration of the land as reserve forest land. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that petitioners have filed objection before the Settlement Officer (Forest Department) annexed as annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. 7. In its order dated 12.09.1966 the Settlement Officer has observed that the learned counsel for the objector conceded this point that the said notification under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act does not cover the land in question i.e. 24 acre of land of Village Ransali. 8. The respondent Department had also initiated the ejectment proceedings against the petitioners but that particular suit was dismissed and the appeal preferred, was also dismissed. 9. 8. The respondent Department had also initiated the ejectment proceedings against the petitioners but that particular suit was dismissed and the appeal preferred, was also dismissed. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that in the relief clause, the prayer was made to declare Village Ransali as revenue village whereas, as per revenue record village Ransali is already a revenue village. 10. So far as the recording of the names of petitioners in revenue records is concerned, the petitioners may file a regular suit before the competent authority as the same involve disputed questions of fact. In the writ jurisdiction this controversy can not be decided whether as on today the land is forest land or the land belongs to the petitioners. 11. In view of the above facts, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance.