JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner are challenging the order dated 17.6.1998, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1, and also the order dated 5.3.1997 in as for as it excludes plot No. 202 from the allotment in favour of the petitioner No. 5, namely, Sharafat in revision No. 20 of 1996-97. 3. Brief facts of the case are that by resolution dated 9.8.1994 the Land Management Committee allotted the different parts of the land in favour of the petitioners. On 26.6.1995, the respondent No. 4, Riyasat filed an application under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act for cancellation of the patta/allotment. The matter was registered as case No. 18/1995-96, Riyasat v. Islam and others. Additional Collector (Finance), Muzaffar Nagar decided the matter on 5.3.1997. The Additional District Magistrate has substantially upheld the allotment, however, with regard to the plot No. 220 area 0.200 hectare, it has been held that it was wrongly added after resolution, and accordingly, the allotment of land in favour of Sharafat was cancelled. Sharafat is petitioner No. 5 in the present writ petition. Against the order dated 5.3.1997 refusing to cancel the allotment, Riyasat filed revision being revision No. 22 of 1997. Sharafat also filed revision against the order cancelling his allotment being revision No. 20 of 1997. The revisional Court allowed the revision filed by Riyasat and has dismissed the revision, filed by Sharafat. The revisional Court has held that plot No. 202 was allotted even though in revenue records, it was entered as pond. The orders of revisional authority had been challenged in the present revision. The writ petition was heard by learned Single Judge of this Court. 4. To ascertain the correct facts learned Single Judge has directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek the instructions from Deputy Collector/Collector concerned and file the affidavit stating as to whether the plot in dispute was ever recorded as pond in revenue records or not. On 29.3.2007 it was further directed that supplementary affidavit must be filed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Kerana, district Muzaffar Nagar. In pursuance of the said order, supplementary affidavit of Sri Shailendra Kumar, Tehsildar, Kerana was filed on 7.5.2007. On 29.3.2007 it was further directed that supplementary affidavit must be filed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Kerana, district Muzaffar Nagar. In pursuance of the said order, supplementary affidavit of Sri Shailendra Kumar, Tehsildar, Kerana was filed on 7.5.2007. In para 5 of the the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, it is stated that plot No. 202 area 1.424 hectares, was never entered in revenue records as pond and it was entered as Banjar land. In support of the said assertion, copies of C.H. Form Nos. 41 and 45 were filed alongwith supplementary affidavit. It was further clarified that an area of 6 bighas 19 biswas of plot No. 202 was entered in the revenue record as sand. Khatauni of 1359 fasli (1951-52) was also filed alongwith said supplementary affidavit. In para 7 of the said supplementary affidavit it was stated that at present there was a deep pit in plot No. 202, area 1.424 hectares, there was no crop on the plot and that several years before earth had been dug from the said plot to construct bandh (dam), which changed its shape and it became a big deep pit however in the revenue records, the said plot was not entered as pond. 5. Learned Single Judge relying upon the decision in the case of Hinchlal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi and others, 2001 AWC 2398 (SC), wherein it has been held that for determining as to whether a particular plot is pond or not only revenue entries are to be seen and if plot is allotted as pond in the revenue records but it is being used for other purposes (for example agriculture or residence after making constructions thereupon) still it will have to be treated as pond. In the revenue records, plot No. 202 was entered as Banjar land and not as pond, the order of Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 17.6.1998 allowing revision on.22 filed by Riyasat has been set aside. However, the revisional order dismissing the revision, filed by petitioner No. 5, Sharafat has been upheld and the writ petition to that extent has been dismissed. Consequential allotment in favour of the petitioners except petitioner No. 5, Sharafat has been upheld and the allotment in favour of Sharafat stood cancelled. It appears that a review application has been filed by the petitioner No. 5, Sharafat, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.12.2007. Consequential allotment in favour of the petitioners except petitioner No. 5, Sharafat has been upheld and the allotment in favour of Sharafat stood cancelled. It appears that a review application has been filed by the petitioner No. 5, Sharafat, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.12.2007. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, the respondent No. 4, Riyasat filed Civil Appeal No. 7102 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said appeal has been allowed vide order dated 23.10.2009 and the matter has been remanded back to this Court for fresh decision in accordance to law. Apex Court observed as follows: “In the present case, we find from the judgment of the High Court that the High Court has not carefully considered the various documents on record, e.g., on para 44 of the paperbook a report of the Tehsildar, Kariana dated 14.11.2006 has been annexed in which it is stated that Khasara No. 202 of Village Mandawar is a Talab (Pond) which is also filled by the water. Subsequently, when the High Court directed to get a fresh report, the Tehsildar, Kariana stated that plot No. 202 was never entered in the revenue records as a pond and it was entered as Banjar. We regret that the High Court has not considered this aspect as to how a contrary report was given when the earlier report of the Tehsildar stated that the plot No. 202 was entered as a talab (pond) in the revenue records. Similarly, there may be other documents which may indicate that the plot in question is a pond or not. In our opinion, the High Court should have gone deeper into the matter and should have examined all the relevant documents carefully before reaching any conclusion. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the relevant documents produced before it by the parties. As regards other plots also, the High Court should examine whether the parties were eligible for allotment of the plots or not. If the High Court considers it appropriate to call for a fresh report as regards the status of the plots in question, the same should be called from some higher officer atleast of the rank of A.D.M.” 6. As regards other plots also, the High Court should examine whether the parties were eligible for allotment of the plots or not. If the High Court considers it appropriate to call for a fresh report as regards the status of the plots in question, the same should be called from some higher officer atleast of the rank of A.D.M.” 6. It is mentioned here that against the order of learned Single Judge, only Riyasat has filed the appeal. No appeal has been fled by the petitioner No. 5, Sharafat and, therefore, the order of this Court so far as the dismissal of the claim of Sharafat is concerned, has become final. 7. It may be mentioned here that by order dated 21.12.2011 this writ petition has been nominated to me. 8. The writ petition came up for consideration on 15.4.2013 and this Court has passed the following order: “The dispute in the present writ petition is that whether Khasra No. 202 is recorded in the Revenue record as a pond or as a Banjar land. The said land has been allotted to the petitioners in the year 1994. The allotment has been cancelled on the ground that the said land was the pond. In an affidavit, filed by Sri Shailendra Kumar, Tehsildar Kairana dated 4.5.2007 in paragraph-5 he has stated that the said land is recorded as Banjar land and was never recorded as pond. On record, there is one counter-affidavit dated 16.9.2007, filed by one Sri Mumtaj, son of Zinda Hasau. Annexure-1 is the disposal of the complaint wherein it is mentioned that Tehsildar Kairana in his inquiry report has reported that on spot Khasra No. 202 is in the form of Talab and it is filled with water and there is no possession of anyone. This report is dated 18.10.2006. The question for consideration is that whether Khasra No. 202 has ever been recorded in the Revenue record as a pond and what is the basis of recording the finding by the revisional authority that it is a pond. Let the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar may give his report alongwith documentary evidence that whether Khasra No. 202 Kairana has ever been recorded in the Revenue record as a pond or it is recorded as a Banjar land. Let the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar may give his report alongwith documentary evidence that whether Khasra No. 202 Kairana has ever been recorded in the Revenue record as a pond or it is recorded as a Banjar land. The District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar is further directed to look into that whether any manipulation in the Revenue record/entry has been made. The District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar may also look into from the record that when on 9.8.1994 the said land was allotted to the petitioners whether the nature of the land was pond and was being used for the purposes of fisheries, whether it has ever been allotted to anyone for the purposes of fisheries. The year wise details of the Revenue records may be submitted alongwith photostat copies of the entries in the Revenue record. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to serve the copy of this order to the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar within a period of 10 days and the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar is directed to give his report within another period of three weeks. The District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar may also inform that who is in possession of the land in dispute and whether the petitioners are still vested with the right to continue as a lessee. List on 20.5.2013.” 9. Counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Gurudeo Singh, Tehsildar, Kairana, Shamli annexing the copy of the report of District Magistrate, Shamil sent to learned Standing Counsel. List on 20.5.2013.” 9. Counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Gurudeo Singh, Tehsildar, Kairana, Shamli annexing the copy of the report of District Magistrate, Shamil sent to learned Standing Counsel. The report of the District Magistrate, Shamli is reproduced below: izs"kd ] ftykf/kdkjh] 'kkeyhA lsok esa] Mk0 e/kq VaMu] LFkk;h vf/koDrk] gkbZdksVZ] bykgkcknA la[;k& 126@ Mh0 fnukad 24-05-13 ,y0 vkj0 lh0@ ,l0Vh0 fo"k;& flfoy fel fjV fiVh’ku ua0 21403@1998 Jh bLyke vkfn cuke mRrj izns’k jkT; o vU; esa vk[;k miyC/k djk;s tkus ds laca/k esaA egksn;k] d`i;k mijksDr fo"k;d vius i= fnukad 22-05-13 dk lUnHkZ ys] ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds iz’uxr vkns’k fnukad 15-04-13 ds vuqikyu esa ftykf/kdkjh 'kkeyh dh vksj ls iz’uxr [kljk ua-0 202 ds lEcU/k esa okafNr fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS blh ds lkFk ;g Hkh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd fjohtuy dksVZ us fdl vk/kkj ij iz’uxr Hkwfe dks rkykc ekurs gq, viuk fu.kZ; fn;k gSA mijksDr ds lEcU/k esa okafNr vk[;k lqlaxr vfHkys[kh; m)j.kksa lfgr fuEuor gS& fjohtuy dksVZ ds fu.kZ; fnukad 17-06-98 esa rkykc lEcU/kh fu"d"kZ& U;k;ky; vij vk;qDr] esjB e.My] esjB ds vkns’k fnukad 17-06-98 ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd fjohtuy dksVZ us vij dysDVj ¼foRr½ eqtQQjuxj dk fu.kZ; fof/k lE;d vkSj rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr ugh ik;k vkSj ;g ik;k fd mlesa izfdz;kRed vfu;ferrk Hkh dh x;h gS ,oa fof/kor tkWp fd;s fcuk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS tks fdlh Hkh n`f"V ls lgh ugh dgk tk ldrk gS] vr% Hkw0iz0 lfefr dk izLrko fnukad 09-08-04 fujLr fd;k x;kA tgkW rd iz’uxr xkVk la[;k 202 dks rkykc ekus tkus ds lEcU/k esa fjohtuy dksVZ }kjk fdl vk/kkj ij fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS dk fcUnq gS] bldk Li"V mYys[k mDr vkns’k esa ifjyf{kr ugh gks jgk gSA fjohtuy dksVZ ds mifyZf[kr fu.kZ; fnukad 17-6-98 dh izfr blds lkFk layXu gS ¼layXud&6½ vk[;k lsok esa voyksdukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gSA layXud&;FkksifjA Hkonh;] ¼ih0ds0 flag½ ftykf/kdkjh 'kkeyhA 10. Alongwith the affidavit a copy of CH Form No. 45, Khatani, Khasra are also filed to demonstrate that plot No. 202 is recorded as Banjar land. In the affidavit, it is stated that plot No. 202 was recorded as Banjar land in the revenue record, was never recorded as pond in the revenue records. Further there is no manipulation in the records. The land was allotted to the petitioners as bhumidhars with non-transferable rights. In the affidavit, it is stated that plot No. 202 was recorded as Banjar land in the revenue record, was never recorded as pond in the revenue records. Further there is no manipulation in the records. The land was allotted to the petitioners as bhumidhars with non-transferable rights. It is stated that when Yamuna fell then due to excavation of mud, gadda became in large and, therefore, for sometime has been made for fisheries purposes. District Magistrate in its report has stated that nobody is in possession over the plot No. 202. Perusal of the report of District Magistrate and the supporting documents, it appears that in the revenue records plot No. 202 when it was allotted was recorded as Banjar land and not as pond. It may be that subsequently, on account of digging of sand or clay, pit has been formed and the water has been filled up and it took shape of pond but in the revenue records it was never recorded as pond. There is one counter-affidavit dated 16.9.2007 filed by Mumtaz, son of Zinda Hasau on behalf of the respondent No. 4, Riyasat is on record. Annexure-1 of the said counter-affidavit is the disposal of complaint dated 18.10.2006, filed by Mumtaz, wherein there is note that “rglhynkj dSjkuk us viuh tWkp vk[;k esa voxr djk;k gS fd ekSds ij [kljk lW[;k 202 rkykc ds :i esa gS ftlesa ikuh “h “jk gqvk gS fdlh O;fDr dk dksbZ dCtk ugh gS ! “ 11. There is nothing in this remark that in the revenue records, khasra No. 202 is recorded as pond. This note is recorded on 18.10.2006. The report only says that the said plot is in the form of pond wherein the water is filled and no one is in possession but it does not say that in the revenue records plot No. 202 is recorded as pond. It may be that on the date of spot inspection due to digging, pit was formed, which was filled with water and land appeared to be pond. 12. In view of the report of District Magistrate and material on record, it is clear that in revenue records plot No. 202 is not recorded as pond and is recorded as Banjar land. Therefore, the findings of the revisional authority that plot No. 202 is pond is incorrect and is not sustainable. 13. 12. In view of the report of District Magistrate and material on record, it is clear that in revenue records plot No. 202 is not recorded as pond and is recorded as Banjar land. Therefore, the findings of the revisional authority that plot No. 202 is pond is incorrect and is not sustainable. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 17.6.1998 passed Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut allowing the revision No. 22 filed by Riyasat is set aside and the impugned order dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner No. 5, Sharafat is upheld. 14. It may be mentioned here that due to alarming reduction in the underground water level, it is extremely essential that the new ponds must be established by digging Banjar lands. It is open to the authority concerned to establish the pond over plot No. 202 and use it as pond and for which make necessary amendment may be made in the revenue records. It is also open to the authorities concerned to cancel patta in accordance to law, if the land is required for public purpose. From the record, it appears that no one is in possession of land and is not being used by the allottee, therefore, it may be advisable to resume the land and use the same for public purposes. However, in any view of the matter, authority concerned must ensure that the land should only be used for the purpose, for which it was allotted and in case if any violation of term of patta will be found, the lease be cancelled immediately. 15. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed as stated above. —————