https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294659 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. en-us Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:23:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294659 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294659