JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. Condonation petition, i.e. I.A. No. 8754 of 2015, is allowed. Delay of 12 days is condoned. The matter is thereafter heard on merits. 2. A proceeding was initiated by the appellant against private respondents No. 8 and 9 making a grievance that they have encroached upon the public land and are obstructing the public passage before the Circle Officer, who held in favour of the appellant. The matter travelled to D.C.L.R. and thereafter before the Commissioner. 3. The Commissioner after going through the material and the evidence came to a considered opinion that there is a public road which is situated in plot No.393, but plot No.386, where the encroachment is being made an issue, is a private piece of property and no public passage as such exists through that plot, people have made residential houses and that plot has been developed as a residential colony. Merely because certain passage was available at a point of time, which people were using according to their convenience, it does not create a right in their favour and that passage does not become a public land or public passage for them to utilize. 4. On the findings including the evidence, which emerged from Annexure-3 to the writ application, the Commissioner set aside the order of the Circle Officer as well as D.C.L.R. and allowed the revision. It is this order which is challenged. 5. It is a desperate effort made on behalf of the appellant to get a right of way by even overriding the right of somebody’s private property since the land in question is not public property, which is sine qua non for a proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act. The Commissioner has done no wrong by allowing application of private respondents and setting aside the wrong finding of the Circle Officer and the D.C.L.R. 6. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.