KANSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants- plaintiffs filed a suit for possession to claim ownership of the property in dispute. In their suit, they also laid challenge to the entries, made by the consolidation authority, in the revenue record.

(2.) Further challenge was made to the allotment made by the competent authority in favour of the respondents under the provisions of The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The Courts below came to the conclusion that so far as the challenge to the entries made by the consolidation authority is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere was barred, in view of provisions of Section 44 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. It has further been held that so far as allotment, is concerned, it was made by the competent authority, in favour of the respondents. The same was challenged by the appellants and they failed. In view of the provisions of Section 26(1)(b) of The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, it was held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred, to entertain that dispute. Before the Courts below, appellants have also failed to prove that any mistake in law, was committed by the authorities when land was allotted to the respondents.

(3.) In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in para Nos.10 to 15, no case is made for interference in pure findings of fact as no substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments. Dismissed.