LAL MOHAMMAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. D. Kesari Advocate for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THE orders dated 6-2-1974, 18-6-1974 and 18-2-1975 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are impugned in the instant writ petition. THE respondent Nos. 1 and 3 concluded that an area 1 bigha, 14 biswa belong to the contesting respondents. THE S. O. C. while confirming the order of the C. O. in appeal came to the conclusion that the entire area of the disputed plot No. 117 belongs to the respondents. THE petitioner is aggrieved by all the three orders.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has disputed the each and every arguments advanced by the Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that all the three judgments are concurrent judgment concluded by finding of fact. There is no reason why the judgment should be interfered in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The orders of the consolidation authorities are based on evidence and cannot be set aside.