LexHARBHAJAN SINGH versus KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
817 A HARBHAJAN SINGH v. KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS September 16, 1965 B [A. K. SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) c D E East Punjab (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1951-s. 42-Whether State Government has power to review an order passed on an application under s. 42. In accordance with a scheme for consolidation of holdings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, parcds of land were re-allotted to the appellant and the first and eight respondents. Being dissatisfied with the allotments, these two respondents preferred appeals at first under s. 23(3) and then under s. 23(4) of the Act. The first appeal was dismissed, but in the oecond ap,Peal, the first respondent's claim was partially allowed by the AssistaDJ Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The appellant then moved the State Government under s. 42 of the Act for revision of the Assistant Director's order and in doing eo, sub- mitted two copies of the requisitei application under s. 42 On the first copy, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings passed an order on the 17th Febrllary, 1958, that application should be put up with previous papers. On the second copy he passed an order on the 3rd Apnl, 1958, dismissing the application. Thereafter, on the first copy, the Director heard the parties and by an order dated 29th August 1958, allowed the appellant's application and set aside the Assistant Director's order. The first respondent then filed a petition in the High Oourt under Art. 226 for a writ to quash the Director's order of the 29th August, 1958, and this petition was allowed on the ground that in view of his order dated the 3rd April 1958, dismissing the application, the Director was not competent to pass the order of the 29th August 1958. F On appeal to this Court. G HELD :The order of the Director dated the 29th August, 1958, w .. ultra vires and without jurisdiction. [820 A-BJ There is no provision in the Act granting express power of review to the State Government with regard to an order under s. 42 of the Act. In the absence of any such express power, it is manifest that the Director could not review his previous order of 3rd April 1958, dismissing the Appellant's application under s. 42. [819 HJ Drew v. Willis, [1891) 1 Q.B. 450, Hession v. Jones, [1914) 2 K-B. 421 and Anantharaju Shetty v. Appu Hegada, A.I.R. 1919 Mad. 244. BaijTUJth Ram Goenka v. Nand Kumar Singh, 40 I.A. 54, referred to. Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and H Anr., [1965) 2 S.C.R. 328. followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1963. USap.C·I./65 9 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1966] l S.C.R. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated A April 19, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 128 of 1960. Gopal Singh, for the appellant. K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 1. B 0. P. Malhotra and R. !V. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2 to 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswaml, J. This appeal is brought by Special Leave from the judgment and decree of the Punjab High Court dated 19th C April, 1960 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 128 of 1960. In the year 1955, consolidation proceedings under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmenta- tion) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) were started in the village Bholpur of District Ludhiana. In accordance with the pro- D visions of the Act, a scheme for consolidation of holdings was pub- lished 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 respon- dents Nos. I and 8 in the village of Bholpur. Being dissatisfied with the allotment, respondents I and 8 preferred appeals under JI: s. 21 (3) of the Act but these appeals were dismissed by the Settle- ment Officer. Respondents 1 and 8 thereafter preferred further appeals under s. 21 ( 4) of the Act to the Assistant Director, Con- solidation 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 11 February, 1958, the appellant moved the State Government und~r s. 42 of the Act for revision of the order passed by the Assistant Director in the appeal of respondent No. 1. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.