SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Harbhajan Singh, Appellant
Versus
Karam Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1; M/s. O. P. Malhotra and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 2 to 7.
-There is no inherent power of review in an authority whether acting judicially or quasi-judicially, nor the Court has any inherent jurisdiction to review its orders or judgments once passed except under the provisions of the Code - Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 641; Chunibhai v. Narayanrao, AIR 1965 SC 1457=(1966) 1 SCJ 774 = (1965) 2 SCR 328.
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J.: This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment and decree of the Punjab High Court dated 19th April, 1960 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 128 of 1960.
2. In the year 1955, consolidation proceedings under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) were started in the village Bholpur of District Ludhaina. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, a scheme for consolidation of holdings was published on 29th March, 1956. On 14th May, 1956 that scheme was confirmed under S. 20 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer accordingly re-allotted parcels of land to the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 8 in the village of Bholpur. Being dissatisfied with the allotment, respondents 1 and 8 preferred appeals under S. 21 (3) of the Act but these appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer. Respondents 1 and 8 thereafter preferred further appeals under S. 21 (4) of the Act to the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The Assistant Director partially allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 by his order dated 29th October 1957 but dismissed the appeal of respondent No. 8. On 10th February, 1958, the appellant moved the State Government under S. 42 of the Act for revision of the order passed by the Assistant Director in the appeal of respondent No.1. The Revision Petition was ultimately accepted on 29th August, 1958 by the Director held that the original order made by the Assistant Director on 29th October, 1957 was contrary to the scheme and was based upon a mistake of fact. The Director accordingly allowed the Revision Petition of Harbhajan Singh on 29th August, 1958.
3. It appears that Harbhajan Singh had filed two copies of the application under S. 42 of the Act and on one copy the Director of Consolidation of Holdings passed an order on 17th February, 1958 that the application should be put up with previous papers. On the second copy of the application the Director passed an order on 3rd April 1958 to the following effect :-
" The order of Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, under S. 21 (4) need not be amended. File. Inform.
On the copy of the application on which the order of 17th February, 1958 was passed, the Director heard the parties and passed his order on 29th August, 1958 by which he allowed the application of Harbhajan Singh and set aside the order of the Assistant Director. Respondent No. 1 thereafter moved the Punjab High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, made on 29th August, 1958. The application was allowed by the High Court on 11th January, 1960 on the ground that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was not competent to pass the order dated 29th August, 1958 in view of his previous order dated 3rd April, 1958 dismissing the application of Harbhajan Singh. The appellant took the matter in appeal under Letters Patent but the appeal was dismissed on 19th April, 1960.
4. The question of law presented for determination in the appeal is, whether the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, had power to review his previous order dated 3rd April 1958 dismissing Harbhajan Singh s application, and whether his subsequent order made under S. 42 of the Act dated 29th August, 1958 is legally valid?
5. S. 42 of the Act states :
"The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this Act call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit :
Provided that no order, scheme or repartition shall be varied or reversed without giving the parties interested notice to appear and opportunity to be heard except in cases where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consider
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.