BARU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relates to the allotment of Abadi area, bearing plot No. 856/1, measuring 1 Kanal 8 Marlas. As a result of an objection petition filed by the petitioner, this plot was allotted to him by the Consolidation Officer. The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, namely Shiv Lal son of Nagahia, challenged this order of the Consolidation Officer by way of an appeal before the Settlement Officer who dismissed the same as being without any merit, vide his order dated July 31, 1965, Annexure 'A' to the petition. Against this order of the Settlement Officer, the said Shiv Lal filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Additional Director who vide his order dated January 23, 1968, Annexure 'B' allowed this plot to be allotted to Shiv Lal and allotted some other area to the petitioners in lieu thereof. Now the petitioners have impugned this order of the Additional Director.

(2.) The sole claim of the petitioner is that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, did not consider the merits of the case properly and the considerations on which he has allotted this plot to the respondents, have not, as a matter of fact, been established on record. I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as the Additional Director has not only discussed this aspect of the case in great detail in paragraph 5 of his order, but has also visited the spot and on verification of various facts at the site, he thought it proper to allot the plot in question to the respondents. I find the order of the Additional Director as well-reasoned and not without any justification. Moreover, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not to sit as a Court of appeal and to appraise the findings recorded by the Additional Director on the basis of evidence and the facts as he ascertained on the spot.

(3.) No other legal flaw or infirmity has been pointed out by Mr. R.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.