STATE Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge, so also common order of the learned Board of Revenue, and therefore, are being decided together.

(2.) THE controversy involved in the present matters is regarding validity of the allotment of lands made to the private respondents, in the sense, that the Tehsildar and patwari reported the allottees to be not bonafide landless agriculturists, while the Allotting Authority purportedly made an inquiry himself, and concluded them to be bonafide landless agriculturists, and made allotments. Then proceedings were initiated for cancellation, somehow that notice was withdrawn.

(3.) THEN it appears that the matter was taken up by Vigilance, and notices were again issued, and thereupon, the Commissioner cancelled the allotments, discussing the reports of the allotting Authority, Tehsildar and Patwari, which cancellation order was challenged by the allottees before the Board of revenue unsuccessfully. Thereafter, writ petitions were filed, and the learned Single Judge chose to interfere with the findings mainly on the ground that according to him the inquiry conducted by the Allotting Authority himself personally was required to be preferred over the report of the tehsildar and Patwari, and accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, and allotments were restored. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128.