ALLADIA Vs. TILAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is an example of a very sorry state of affairs of this judicial system through which this writ petition has reached to this stage. On an overall scrutiny of the writ petition, there are at about three stages at least, on which the petitioner could be said to have misled the Court, may it be before the Subordinate Court or before the High Court by not placing correct facts and law on record.

(2.) Though the controversy pertaining to the claim of original holding which was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 11th February, 2002, whereby, the petitioner, who is the chak holder No. 106, was allotted chak on the original holding and the respondent who is the chak holder of 247 was allotted holding, adjoining the original holding of his father.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that though the respondent was not affected, the respondent, herein, means Tilak Ram only. Yet he preferred an appeal by invoking Section 21 (2) of the Act, being Appeal No. 116 of 2002, in which, he has claimed that he has got his original holding No. 14 and he has been allotted Gata No. 8, 9, 10 and 11. He prayed that he should be allotted land on the original holding, i.e. on Gata No. 14.