SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(P&H) 176

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia and Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu JJ.
Harbhajan Kaur
Versus
State Of Punjab
Review Application No. 505 of 1993,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 8, 1994

A court has jurisdiction to review its own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct grave and palpable errors.

Headnote:

REVIEW - WRIT PETITION - CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS - JURISDICTION - WAQF PROPERTY - TRANSFER OF LAND - PRESS NOTES ISSUED BY STATE GOVERNMENT - OWNERSHIP - ADMISSION BY PARTIES - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITIONS - CONTEMPT OF COURT - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought a mandate to transfer agricultural land in their possession in accordance with press notes issued by the Punjab Government. The Tehsildar (Sales) ordered the deposit of Lagan and directed the file to be put up before his successor for allotment of land/transfer under the Rules. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction to consider their claim for transfer of surplus rural evacuee agricultural land. The court directed the respondent to examine the claim within three months and maintain status quo regarding possession till the final decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners had concealed material facts and made false representations to obtain favorable orders in the writ petitions. The court also found that the Punjab Wakf Board, which was vitally affected by the orders, was not impleaded as a party to the writ petitions. The court held that the petitioners' conduct prima facie amounted to gross contempt of the Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to transfer of the disputed land under the Press Notes issued by the State Government? 2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review its own orders? 3. Whether the petitioners' conduct amounted to contempt of court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to transfer of the disputed land as it was Wakf property and the Punjab Wakf Board was the owner. 2. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review its own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct grave and palpable errors. 3. The court held that the petitioners' conduct in concealing material facts and making false representations to obtain favorable orders in the writ petitions prima facie amounted to gross contempt of the Court.

Final Decision: The court allowed the review applications, recalled the orders dated September 28, 1993 passed in the writ petitions, and dismissed the writ petitions. The court also directed the petitioners to appear in Court on February 11, 1994, to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court.

Judgment

1. This order disposes of R.A. No. 505 of 1993 in C.W.P. No. 9089 of 1993, R.A. No. 504 of 1993 in C.W.P. No. 9520 of 1993, R.A. No. 503 of 1993 in C.W.P. No. 9521 of 1993 and R.A. No. 506 of 1993 in C.W.P. No. 9522 of 1993.

2. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur w/o Arjan Singh, Smt. Kuldip Kaur w/o Sham Singh, Dial Singh s /o Gurdev Singh and Harminder Singh s /o Daljit Singh, petitioners in C.W.P. No. 9089 of 1993, 9520 of 1993, 9521 of 1993 and 9522 of 1993, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) sought a mandate to the State of Punjab through Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana, Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana and Tehsildar(Sales), Ludhiana, to transfer them the agricultural land allegedly in their possession in accordance with the press notes issued by the Punjab Government from time to time. The allegations in the writ petitions were almost identical. It was stated in the petitions that the Kanungo made a report that they were entitled to the transfer of land. Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana, on 26/12/1989 ordered that the Lagan be deposited and the file be put up before his successor for allotment of land / transfer under the Rules. Pursuant to the order of Tehsildar (Sales), the Lagan was deposited, but the Tehsildar (Sales) did not pass the final orders in the matter.

3. C.W.P. No. 9089 of 1993 came up for motion hearing on 30/07/1993. Mr. J. S. Virk, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated thus:-

"The petitioner has submitted an application for conferment of the proprietary rights. That application remains undecided." In the light of this statement, notice of motion returnable for 6/09/1993 was ordered to be issued and it was directed that status quo regarding possession be maintained in the meanwhile.

4. C.W.P. Nos. 9520, 9521 and 9522 of 1993 came up for motion hearing on 12/08/1993, and on the representation of Shri J.S.Virk, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, the following order was passed:-

"Notice of motion for 6-9-1993. To come up with CWP No. 9089 of 1993. Status quo regarding Possession be maintained meanwhile."

Mr. G. S. Cheema, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appeared for the respondents on September 6, l993, and on his request the writ petition were adjourned to 28/09/1993. On that date, these writ petitions were disposed of with the following observations :-

"This judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 9089, 9520, 9521 and 9522 of 1993. The petitioners have sought a mandate to the respondents to consider their claim for allotment of surplus rural evacuee agricultural land in accordance with the policy decision taken by the State Government vide Press Note (I) dt. Sept. 4, 1974 and subsequent Press Notes issued by the State Government in this behalf. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Advocate General (Punjab) appearing for the respondents. We think it appropriate not to go on the merit of the contentions raised in the petition. It will meet the ends of justice if a direction is issued to respondent No. 3 to examine the claim of the petitioners for transfer of surplus rural evacuee agricultural land in terms of Press Note (I), dt. Sept. 4, 1974 and the subsequent Press Notes issued by the State Government in this behalf within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the final decision by respondent No. 3, if the petitioners are in possession of the land for which a claim has been made for transfer in terms of the Press Notes, they will not be dispossessed therefrom till their claim for transfer of surplus evacuee agricultural land is disposed of."

5. The present applications seeking review of our orders dt. Sept. 28, 1993 passed in the writ petitions were moved on Nov. 23. 1993. These came up for motion hearing on Nov. 26, 1993 and the following order was passed :

"Mr. P. K. Palli, Sr. Ad
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top