CHET SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 24-03-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
369 
CHET SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
March 24, 1977 
[M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article 136-Powers to be exercised when-whether 
non-est orders can be ig11ored-East Puniab Holdings (Consolidation and Pre-
1-ention of Fragmentation) Act 1948-Section 42 . 
A 
B 
Gurdev Singh had certain complaints about the Consolidation Scheme. 
He 
\Vas not present when his application was 
being 
considered. Therefore, the 
application was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. Thereafter, 
Gurdev Singh respondent No. 3 filed an application for restoration supported by 
an affidavit attributing his absence to his 
illness. The Additional Director 
C 
accepted the ground of resJ)ondent No. 3 about illness and granted 
necessary 
relief to him. The appellant filed a writ_petition in the High Court under Articles 
226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the assertion 
of 
rights by the appellant merely because of some report contained in the "Fard 
Badar" could not take away the effect of the entries in the revenue records. The 
High Court alsc held that no injustice was caused to the appellant and, therefore. 
there was no ground for interference under Article 226. 
D 
Jn an appeal by Special Leave, the appellant contended that the Additional 
Director had no power to review his previous order. The power to review CQn~ 
ferred by section 42 of the 
Act has to be exercised only after hearing 
the 
interested parties. Since respondent No. 3 was not given an opportunity 
of 
being heard on account of his illness, it shows that the 9rder passed was non~est 
and can be ignored at any stage. The court dismissed the appeal on the ground 
that this was not a fit case for interference under Article 136. 
rhe Court, how· 
ever, observed that if the appellant has any right on account of long possession 
or otherv.:ise he can assert them by adopting proper proceedings and that his 
E 
rights would not be affected by \vhatever is staled in the judgment of this ·court 
as well as the High Court. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2150 of 
1968. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated. 
5.9. J 968 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 458/68). 
F 
V. C. Malwjan, Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi, for the appellant. 
0. P. Sharma, for the respondents 1 and 2. 
K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri, for respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, C.J. 
This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is 
directed against a very detailed Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana 
G 
High Court on a Writ Petition No. 1875 of 1965 filed under Articles 
226 and 227 of the Constitution, assailing an order of the Additional 
Director, Consolidation of Holdings, passed on 8 June, 
1965. A 
.perusal of that order, together with the earlier order of 4 May, 1965, 
H 
and the application for restoration dated 15 May, 1965, filed by 
Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 3, shows : Gurdev Singh, wl10 
had 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
37 0 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 3 S.C.R. 
some complaint against the Consolidation Scheme, was not present so 
that his petition was ordered to be filed by the Additional Director, 
Consolidation on 4 May, 1965. 
Gurdev Singh, soon thereafter i.e. 
on 15 May, 1965, filed an application for restoration supported by an 
affidavit, attributing his absence on 4 May, 1965, to his illness. The 
order dated 8 June, 1965, of the Additional Director, shows 
that 
the applicant Gurdev Singh's assertion that he could not attend due 
to illness, over which he had no control, was accepted by the Addi-
tional Director, who proceeded to exercise his powers under ~ection 
42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention 
of 
Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 
and 
to set right the grievance of the applicant, Gurdev Singh, alter going 
into all the relevant records. 
The learned Judge of the High Court, 
who heard the petition also went through the records very carefully, 
came to the conclusion tha·t an assertion of rights by the petitioner/ 
appellant, a member of the Sanjam Group, merely because of some 
report contained in the "Fard Badar," could not take away the effect 
of entries in the revenue records. 
The learned Judge held that no 
injustice was caused to the petitioner/appellant also, 
there was no 
ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.