It was argued before the Courts below by the defendant that Ratia got allotment in his favour by concealment of facts as it has come in the evidence of DW5 Munshi Ram, Accountant, Irrigation Department, Western Yamuna canal Division, where Ratia was employed as a Beldar, that his last drawn salary in the month of June 1976 was 277.70/- which was more than 2,400/- per annum. It was argued that since the allotment has been obtained by concealment of facts, therefore, the Allotment Authority has rightly cancelled the allotment in favour of Ratia by reviewing its order, but the learned Courts below have held that power of review does not vest in the Allotment Authority, therefore, the order of review cannot stand. It was then urged before the Courts below by the defendant that the Civil Court does not have power in view of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972 [for short “the Act”], but it was held that since the order has been passed beyond the scope of the Act, therefore, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. It was also argued that a simple suit for declaration was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not sought decree for possession but the Court
