KRISHNA CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are these: The Petitioner was issued notice under Section 10(2) and he filed objections. The objections were decided by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was heard and decided by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad. Now, the Petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Shri P.N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Counsel contended before me that plots Nos. 575 and 576 should have been treated as grove and the said contention was wrongly rejected by the authorities below. Counsel contended that the applications which were made to the appellate court for a spot inspection and for the issuance of a commission should not have been rejected. In my view, in the writ juris" diction, I cannot interfere with the discretion of the appellate court in the said matter. Learned Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that the applications had been similarly moved before the Prescribed Authority but the same were also rejected. The copies of the said applications and the orders passed thereon have not been placed along with the petition and nothing can be said about the said rejection. In any case, as I have stated above, the writ court cannot interfere in the exercise of the discretionary powers on the part of the authorities below.

(3.) THIS petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.