Riverbed or water body land cannot be regularized under policy citing Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; writ courts cannot re-examine factual reports submitted by authorities.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

1. By the present intra-court appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 2056 of 2023 whereby writ petition filed by the appellants/petitioners was dismissed.

2. The appellants claimed benefit of the Government Order dated 18.07.2016 issued by the State Government for regularization of certain category of unauthorized occupants over the public land recorded in revenue record as Class-IV Category. The appellants had filed an application before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for regularization of the land comprising in Khasra No.448/1/1 and Khasra No.448/3 admeasuring 4.018 hectare situated in Village Khairna, Tehsil Sitarganj.

3. On the said application, a report was called by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.), who stated that the land in question, sought to be regularized by the petitioners/appellants, is a water body, therefore, the benefit of Government Order dated 18.07.2016 cannot be given in view of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for Short “U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act”).

4. Against the said decision, the petitioners filed the writ petition which was dismissed on 08.10.2025 and the said order is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land in occupation of the appellants is not a water body and the report submitted to the said effect by the authorities is factually incorrect. He refers to the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and contends that, as per the averment made in the counter affidavit, the land is a river side land and as such the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 are not applicable.

6. We had repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellants to demonstrate through any document the status of his land, however, learned counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate any document and placed reliance on a sarzra map to contend that the land is not a riverbed land but a river side land.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that a detail counter affidavit was filed before the writ court wherein it was specified that the Government Order dated 18.07.2016, the benefit of which was claimed by the appellants, itself clarified that the land falling under Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 would not be regularized.

8. He further submits that vide order dated 12.07.2021 and 20.04.2023 the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar disposed of the application filed by the appellants by a comprehensive and detailed order on the basis of the fact finding report submitted by the authorities.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The Government Order dated 18.07.2016 clearly specifies that the land covered under Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 would not be regularized. It further clarified that, in case a person is in unauthorized occupation of such land covered Under of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 then the said person would first be evicted and only then his case for regularization of other category-IV land would be considered.

11. Sub-clause (1) and (2) of Clause-3 of the said Government Order dated 18.07.2016 reads as under:

12. The order dated 12.07.2021 categorically mentions that the land in occupation of the appellants is not fit for regularization. The appellants made an applicat