JUDGMENT :

1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is final order dated 29^th March, 2016 passed by State Level Scrutiny Committee, wherein it was erroneously held that his client is 'Pano' by birth, inherited from his forefathers, living in Pano basti, separate from Kandha basti of the village and consequential directions. He submits, inquiry report submitted by IIC, Tikabali PS relied on statements of persons named as witnesses. Those persons subsequently affirmed affidavits stating contrary to what the report says they said. Those affidavits were not considered by the Committee. He draws attention to second reason in impugned order, reproduced below.

2. He submits further, his client did not have his name recorded in the RoR. It is no matter that someone else had his name is recorded. That could not be relevant evidence since the recorded person