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. 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 petit