Honble SHETHNA, J.–For committing breach of the conditions, the allotment made to the original allottee-petitioner was cancelled. As per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Union of India and others reported in 1996 (5) Supreme 672 the petitioner filed review petition before the learned Special Judge and after hearing him and considering the evidence led by him the learned Special Judge by his order dated 18.8.1998 held that the decision dated 23.3.1993 of S.D.O. Raisinghnagar cancelling the allotment of petitioner was proper and legal. Accordingly, he dismissed the re- view petition filed by the petitioner by impugned order at Annex.4. The same is challenged by way of this petition. (2). On behalf of the State the evidence was led to show that after allotment, the petitioner himself was not cultivating the land and he was not staying in Chak for several years. Survey report was also to the said effect. However, against that evidence, the petitioner led evidence of Resham Singh, who alleged to have cultivated the land in 1996 on behalf of the petitioner, who was said to have fallen sick. Learned Special Judge has not relied upon the oral evidence of Resham Singh and petitioner Kishore Lal as the petitioner was not able to produce any evidence regarding the cultivation of land or that he was staying in the said Chak. Learned Special Judge discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties in para 10 of his judgment. After appreciating the evidence led before him he has come to the conclusion that the order of cancellation of allotment passed by S.D.O. on 23.7.93 was just, proper and legal. When the Learned Special Judge on appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion then this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with such order as this court is not sitting in Appeal over the decision. (3). When the Learned Special Judge on appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion then this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with such order as this court is not sitting in Appeal over the decision. (3). Learned counsel Shri Sharma for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in his entire order the learned Judge has not recorded any reasons that the oustee allottee was forced to leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilites such as water, roads, schools and medical assistance and/or because of coercion intimidation or trespass as held by the Supreme Court in case of Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti (supra). I am of the considered opinion that the learned Distt. Judge was required to record such reasons only if he was of the opi- nion that oustee allottee was forced to leave the land, otherwise not. When there is sufficient evidence on record to show that original allottee was not staying in the said Chak for several years and also he was not cultivating the land personally then the aforesaid reasons are not required to be recorded by the learned Judge. Hence, this submission of Mr. Sharma is rejected. (4). Learned counsel Shri Sharma has raised one more submission that the decision taken by the S.D.O. was ex-parte. It is clear from the record that sufficient care was taken by the S.D.O. before taking ex-parte decision. Notices were issued time and again and not only that notice was published in the news paper also, therefore, it cannot be said that it was an ex-parte decision. All care were taken by the authority before taking ex- parte decision and even after issuance of notice and publication of notice, if the petitioner does not appear then later on he cannot make any grievance that authority took ex-parte decision in the matter. Hence, this submission of Mr. Sharma is also rejected. (5). In view of the above, I do not find any substance or merit in this writ peti- tion, and the same fails and is hereby dismissed.