K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the Judgement of the revisional court dated 12-1-1988, contained in Annexure III attached to the writ petition, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that his chak no. 67 has been disturbed without appreciating the difficulties of the petitioner. The aforesaid Judgement is not a balanced Judgement and it does not deal with the claim of the petitioner.
(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties Abdul Shakoor has tried to support the impugned Judgement and according to him sufficient reason has been assigned in the impugned Judgement while accepting the claim of the contesting opposite party Abdul Shakoor. Therefore, the impugned Judgement should not be interfered with.;