Consolidation record findings and finality of separate writ petition upheld; remand in another case did not revive concluded proceedings.

The Delhi High Court noted that the original consolidation record showed Khasra No. 122/5 was carved out from the holdings of Tara Wanti and Ho Ram, first entered in the Gaon Sabha khata, and later allotted to the respondents, while the appellant's predecessor had been given different khasra numbers. It found no basis to disturb the Financial Commissioner's factual conclusions, as they were supported by material and not shown to be perverse. The Court also held that a remand in a connected writ petition did not reopen or revive the appellant's separate petition, which had already attained finality. No interference was warranted with the challenged decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Financial Commissioner's finding that Khasra No. 122/5 was not allotted to the appellant's predecessor and that the relied upon records had been tampered with called for interference. (ii) Whether the earlier remand in the connected writ petition revived the appellant's separate, already concluded petition.

Issue (i): Whether the Financial Commissioner's finding that Khasra No. 122/5 was not allotted to the appellant's predecessor and that the relied upon records had been tampered with called for interference.

Analysis: The original consolidation record was scrutinized and it was found that Khasra No. 122/5 was carved out of the pre-consolidation holdings of Tara Wanti and Ho Ram and was first included in the Gaon Sabha's khata. The record further showed that the land was subsequently allotted to the respondents through the relevant resolutions, while the appellant's predecessor had been allotted different khasra numbers. The Court found no basis to hold that the Financial Commissioner's factual conclusions were unsupported by material, ignored relevant evidence, or were perverse.

Conclusion: The finding of the Financial Commissioner was upheld and the challenge to the allotment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier remand in the connected writ petition revived the appellant's separate, already concluded petition.

Analysis: The remand judgment was passed in the writ petition filed by another claimant and specifically set aside the order in that proceeding alone. The appellant's petition had been decided separately and had already been accepted. The Court held that the remand order did not operate to reopen or revive the appellant's concluded petition.

Conclusion: The appellant's contention that the earlier remand revived his case was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the decision under challenge, and the appeal failed on both the factual allotment issue and the procedural contention based on the earlier remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded consolidation dispute will not be disturbed where the factual findings are based on the original record and are not shown to be perverse, and a remand in another proceeding does not revive a separate petition that had already attained finality.

---