LexCHHIDDA SINGH versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c CHHIDDA SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. FEBRUARY 19, 1998 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 137 Supreme Court Rules, I 966 : Order XL. Review-Filing of review petition in casual and irresponsible manner- Depreciation of-Dismissal of special leave petition- No existence of error, much less error apparent on the face of record-Review petition filed reproducing verbatim paragraphs from special leave petition-Held filing of D such a review is abuse of the process of this Court-Review petition dismissed with costs. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 315 of 1998. IN Special leave Petition (C) No. 6347 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.96 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 29979of1996. F The following Order of the Court was delivered : Delay condoned. Application for personal hearing is rejected. We have perused the review petition and the connected record. The G casual and irresponsible manner in which the review petition has been filed is self evident. The grounds in the review petition and in the special leave petition are verbatim the same even to the extent of the mistakes. In the grounds of special leave petition, there are two paragraphs marked "K" and in the grounds of the review petition also, there are two paragraphs marked H "K". The following tabular statement demonstrates what we have said above: . 1030 CHHIDDA SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 1031 '· (A) Because the High Court and (A) Because the High Court and A the Dy. Director of the Consolidation the Dy. Director of the Consolidation lost sight of the glaring position of law lost sight of t11e glaring position of law thatthe order passed by the Settlement t11at the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 2.12.1995, Officer Consolidation on 2.12.1995, after making spot inspection and after making spot inspection and B appreciation of all the documents and appreciation of all the documents and circumstances and facts of t11e case circumstances and facts of the case attained fmality under Sec. 21 (2) of the attained finality under Sec. 21 (2) of the C.H. Act. the said Settlement Officer C.H. Act. tl1e said Settlement Officer Consolidation was the Court of first Consolidation was the Court of first appeal and as such its decision was appeal and as such its decision was c final in so far as tl1e facts of tl1e case final in so far as the facts of the case were concerned. were concerned. (B) Because the High Court and (B) Because tl1e High Court and Dy. DirectorofConsolidationfailed to Dy. Director Consolidation failed to appreciate that the powers of the appreciate that the powers of the D revisional court under Sec. 48 of the revisional court under Sec. 48 of the C.H. Act are very limited restricted and C.H. Act are very limited restricted and are not the unfettered power to upset are not t11e unfettered powers to upset the orders of the Settlement Officer of t11e orders oft11e Settlement Officeron the Settlement Officer on the the question of fact, which order has E questions of fact, which order has attained finality. attained finality. (C) Because tl1e Dy. Director of (C) Because the Dy. Director of Consolidation has erred gravely in not Consolidation has erred gravely in not keeping in mind tile provision of Sec. keeping in mind tile provision of Sec. 19 (f) oftl1e U.P.C.H. Act which makes F " 19 (f) oftl1e U.P.C.H. Act which makes it necessary for tile allotment of the it necessary for tile allotment of the same chak to tile tenureholder wherein same chak to the tenureholder wherein his own source ofinigation is installed. ' Iris own source ofinigation is installed. (D) Because tl1e order passed by G (D) Because t11e order passed by t11e Settlement Officer Consolidation is ~ the Settlement Officer Consolidation is final and binding between the final and binding between the parties. parties. (E) Because the Dy. Director of Consolidation has acted without (E) Because the Dy. Directorof jurisdiction in vertually axing the order H 1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 1 S.(f'..R. A Consolidation has acted without jurisdiction in vertually axing the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was passed after appreciation of all the facts. B (F) Because as a result of t11e order of the Dy. Director of Consolidat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.