JAG RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 5 has not adhered to the schedule of payment and as such he had lost the interest in the property in question. He further contends that Special Secretary, Rehabilitationcum Settlement Commissioner, Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to impose costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) The petitioner has been litigating before the Authorities and Courts since 1967 and has only got adverse orders. This Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal so as to appreciate the entire evidence or the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Authorities concerned, while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of this jurisdiction is a very limited one and is controlled by a well-settled connons of writ jurisdiction. All these years, the Authorities concerned have passed the orders which are detailed ones and founded upon acceptable evidence.

(3.) We would refer to the finding recorded by the Authorities concerned in the impugned order dated 16.9.1999: .