K.M. Joseph, J.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. Petitioner had land, which is displaced in connection with the construction of the Tehri Dam. On 26.03.2004, he was allotted a residential plot no. 3, measuring 200 square meters. Physical possession was handed over on 13.12.2004 and he is in possession thereof. Next, he relies on Government Order dated 28.03.2003. The translated version of the same, which is handed over by the learned counsel for the appellant, reads as follows:

“Number 62/Nau-1-Si/ti Ba pa/2003

From

O.P. Arya

Principal Secretary,

Uttaranchal Government

To

Director Rehabilitation

Tehri Dam Project

New Tehri

District Magistrate

Tehri/Dehradun/Haridwar

Sinchai Vibhag

Dated Dehradun March, 28, 2003

Sub:- In respect of Grant of Bhumidhari rights to Tehri Dam Oustees.

Sir,

On the above subject as per the GO of Government of Uttar Pradesh no. 540-sakh/79/23-Si-3-18s/78(85) dated 4.4.1979 provision was made to give government land to tehri dam Oustees for rehabilitation on 99 yr lease. Accordingly Tehri outstees have been allotted at different places, is on a lease of 99 yrs.

After consideration on this superceding the above GO Governor is pleased to grant bhumidhari rights to Tehri Dam Oustees on the allotted government land (excluding forest land). Accordingly tehri oustees who have been allotted land on lease be given bhumidhari rights and in revenue records in place of Lease bhumidhari be recorded. Please amend the revenue records land necessary action be intimated to the government at the earliest.

Bhavdiya

O.P. Arya

Principal Secretary”

2. Petitioner made an application for giving bhumidhari rights and he made a representation Annexure No. 4. On the complaint that his case was not being considered, he approached the Writ Court seeking the following prayer:

“I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 1 & 2 to grant bhumidhari rights to petitioner forthwith.”

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting that since residential plot was allotted to the petitioner as per paper no. 14 of the paper book, therefore, residential plot cannot be directed to be treated as bhumidhari property. Though it is stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that perusal of certificate would reveal that no agricultural plot is allotted to the petitioner and a residential plot is allotted, the learned counsel for the appellant very fairly would submit that the appellant was, in fact, allotted an agricultural land also.

4. When the matter came in appeal, we thought that we should be assisted by Amicus Curiae. Accordingly, we appointed Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel.

5. We heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae and also Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

6. Though, by order dated 09.10.2014, direction was given to file counter affidavit, it is true that no counter affidavit was filed in the matter.

7. Apparently, the basis of the writ petition is the right, which the appellant perceives in him on the basis of the Government Order, which we have extracted hereinbefore. The learned Amicus Curiae would, in fact, point out that on a proper construction of the said order, appellant may not be in a position to advance his case. According to him, the order only provides that those Tehri Dam oustees, who were allotted Government land, excluding Forest land, on the basis of the order dated 04.04.1979, will be given bhumidhari rights and in revenue records, in place of lease, bhumidhari rights be recorded. In fact, learned Amicus Curiae would also submit that the matter is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In fact, he made reference to Section 144.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, would, in fact, point out that it is in respect of land covered by Section 143 that Section 144 would apply. On a construction of the