MOTI RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Shiv Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially for redressal of their grievances parties had approached the Consolidation Officer who decided the matter by order dated 23.1.2006 (Annexure No.2). Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bahraich namely Appeal Nos.567 "Lallu Ram & Ors. vs. Shatrohan & Ors., 574 "Kheduram & Ors. vs. Shatrohan & Ors." and 579 "Ram Vilas vs. Shatrohan & Ors.". In one of the appeal, an application has been moved before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bahraich for summoning the register no.8 in order to compare the Will deed with the sale deed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records on the point in question, by means of the order dated 24.8.2006, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich rejected the said application with the following findings:-

(2.) RECENTLY , Ho'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Heinz India Private Ltd. And another vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 443 after placing the reliance on the judgment of Reid Vs. Secy. Of State for Scotland (1999) 1 ALL ER 481 (HL) held that Judicial review involves a challenge to the legal validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decisions itself it may be found to be perverse or irrational or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or of sufficient evidence, to support it, or through account being taken of irrelevant matter, or through a failure for any reason to take account of a relevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision maker is required to apply. But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.