JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for quashing the order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Bijnor (respondent No. 1) on a representation dated 3.1.2005 submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20626 of 1990. 2. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it transpires that the petitioner was granted lease of plot No. 88 by the Gaon Sabha in the year 1982 for fishery rights. The term of the said lease was 10 years. During the continuance of the lease, the order dated 14.8.1987 was passed by the Tehsildar, Bijnor cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an Appeal, which was dismissed by the order dated 6.8.1990. 3. The petitioner thereupon filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20626 of 1990. 4. By the order dated 21.4.2004, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court. Relevant portion of the said order dated 21.4.2004 is reproduced below : “The writ petition has become infructuous because of the expiry of the term of the period of lease, which was granted to the petitioner. So far as the grievance of the petitioner with regards to cutting of the Eucalyptus trees planted on the said land is concerned it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation before the Additional Collector, Bijnor ventilating all his grievances. If such representation is made by the petitioner before the Collector, Bijnor, he shall pass a reasoned order deciding the representation in accordance with law within one month thereafter. Petitioner shall also file a certified copy of this order alongwith the representation. With the observations, referred to above, this petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.” Pursuant to the said order dated 21.4.2004, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 3.1.2005 before the Collector, Bijnor, inter alia, praying for being permitted to cut the trees which had allegedly been planted by the petitioner on the boundary of the land given to the petitioner under lease, as mentioned above. The petitioner submitted Affidavits in support of his representation. 5. The petitioner submitted Affidavits in support of his representation. 5. The Additional Collector, Bijnor on a detailed consideration of the material on record including the representation submitted by the petitioner and the Affidavits filed in support of the said representation passed the order dated 3.6.2005 concluding that the trees in question had been planted by a group of 13 persons in the year 1981, while the lease of the petitioner commenced in the year 1982. The Additional Collector, Bijnor further concluded that the trees in question had not been planted by the petitioner, and therefore, no permission could be granted to the petitioner to cut the said trees. 6. The petitioner thereupon filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 7. We have heard Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Additional Collector, Bijnor in the impugned order dated 3.6.2005 were erroneous, as the Affidavits submitted by the petitioner in support of his representation had not been considered. 9. Having considered the submissions made by Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 10. A perusal of the order dated 3.6.2005 shows that the Additional Collector, Bijnor considered in detail the entire material on record including the representation of the petitioner and the Affidavits filed by the petitioner in support of the representation, and arrived at the findings mentioned above. The findings recorded by the Additional Collector, Bijnor on the consideration of the material on record are findings of fact. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the Additional Collector, Bijnor in the impugned order dated 3.6.2005. No interference is, therefore, called for with the said findings in exercise of our Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ——————