Judicial review of allotment cancellation turns on proof of fraud and supporting evidence, not unsupported administrative satisfaction.

The Supreme Court of India stated that cancellation of an allotment under Section 24(2) depended on a jurisdictional fact: the allotment must have been obtained by fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact. It held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's satisfaction on that issue was subject to judicial review and had to rest on relevant material, not arbitrary or perverse reasoning. Because the original record was not produced, relevant supporting reports were ignored, and the finding of non-genuineness lacked evidence, the cancellation was set aside and the prior allotment remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner could cancel the allotment under Section 24(2) on the basis that the allotment had been obtained by fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact, and whether his satisfaction was supported by evidence.

Analysis: The power under Section 24(2) is conditioned upon the existence of a jurisdictional fact, namely that the allotment was obtained by fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact. The Commissioner's satisfaction is not final in the sense of being immune from judicial review, and a superior court may examine whether such satisfaction was reached on relevant material and not arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. On the record, the original Khasra-Girdwari was not produced, the Commissioner did not consider the relevant reports that supported the earlier allotment, and his conclusion that the entries were not genuine was unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was rightly set aside because the finding of fraud was based on no evidence and the statutory condition for exercise of power was not established.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation failed, and the prior allotment in favour of the respondents remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory power to cancel an allotment depends on satisfaction of a jurisdictional fact, that satisfaction is open to judicial review and cannot be sustained when reached without relevant evidence.

---