JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. Challenging the rejection of her objections to the allotment of a Nautaur land to the 4th respondent herein, the original petitioner came up with the above writ petition. 2. She died during the pendency of the writ petition and her legal heirs are on record as the petitioners. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State and Mr. A.S. Rana, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. It appears that the 4th respondent applied to the 2nd respondent for the allotment of Nautaur land to the extent of 3/2 Bishwas. The application was made by the 4th respondent, way back on 28.9.2010, on the grounds that she is a widow, having four children, out of whom, one was physically handicapped and that no member of her family was in government service. The application was not probably accompanied by any of the certificates to prove her claim. However, the 4th respondent subsequently produced all necessary certificates, after examining which, the 2nd respondent made allotment, by an order dated 3.10.2016. 5. Upon coming to know of the said allotment, petitioner filed her objections on 29.12.2016. These objections were rejected by the 3rd respondent by an order dated 22.4.2017. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 6. The age of the petitioner is not in dispute. She was about 68 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition. The fact that her husband had already died and the fact that she has four children are also not seriously disputed. According to the 4th respondent, one of her four children, is physically handicapped. 7. A copy of inquiry report is enclosed to the reply filed by the 2nd respondent. In the inquiry report, the 3rd respondent has recorded his subjective satisfaction of the fulfillment of requirements for the allotment of land in favour of the 4th respondent. 8. Once, it is clear that the application made by the 4th respondent contained relevant particulars and once it is established that the truth and validity of those particulars were verified by the appropriate authority to come to the conclusion that the 4th respondent deserved allotment of a small piece of land, it is not open to this Court to sit on judgment over the said decision. The decision taken by the 2nd respondent does not appear to be arbitrary or completely perverse. What is allotted to the 4th respondent, is a small piece of land to enable her to eke out her livelihood. 9. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the application filed by the 4th respondent in the year 2010, was not accompanied by any certificate and that all certificates required to establish her credentials, were obtained only after the date of the application. We have seen these certificates. It is true that these certificates were obtained later on. 10. We must always keep in mind the fact that the certificates are only pieces of evidence. The claim made by the 4th respondent, in her application, is supported by the certificates. The fact that the certificates came into existence subsequent to the application would not make the claim made in the application false. 11. Moreover, the 4th respondent subsequently filed another application on 10.8.2016 in the proper format. It is only after she filed a proper application that the order of allotment was passed. Therefore, we do not think it appropriate to interfere in a matter of this nature where a widow of 68 years has been allotted a small piece of land for her livelihood. 12. However, the cost imposed upon the petitioners during the course of inquiry, by order dated 7.4.2017, shall stand set aside. 13. Petition is disposed of in above terms alongwith pending applications, if any.