KULDEEP SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KULDEEP SINGH 
A 
> 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND 0.1(. JAIN, JJ. J 
B 
Practice and procedure: 
Division Bench of High Court comprising of a Judge who had issued c 
notice in the matter as Single Judge of High Court-:--Plea that Division 
Bench comprising of that judge ought not have taken up the matter-Held: 
It was not brought to the notice of Division Bench of High Court regarding 
Judge having issued notice-Moreover, it is not a rule of universal application 
that whenever any Single Judge had dealt with a case even for routine 
purposes that would preclude him from hearing the appeal-Hence, no case D 
made out to interfere with the view expressed by Single Judge on merits as 
·} 
affirmed by Division Bench. 
The appellant filed writ petition seeking issuance of direction to sanction 
conversion of the appellant's share in the plot from leasehold to freehold . 
• 
Single Judge of High Court was of the view that prayer cannot be granted as E 
it would amount to direction to amend the lay-out plan and would also have the 
effect of upsetting development control and planning norms. Division Bench 
of High Court affirmed the same. 
In the appeal to this court, appellant contended that that the High Court's 
approach is erroneous and that in any event the Division Bench of the High F 
Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice S.K. Kaul ought not to have 
taken up the matter as at an earlier point of time, Justice Kaul had dealt with 
the matter. 
Respondent contended that the appellant had not pointed out at anyiij;o1nt G 
of time before the Division Bench of High Court that Justice Kaul had earlier 
dealt with the matter and, therefore, it will not be open to the appellant to 
make a grievance and that Justice Kaul had not passed the final order and, 
.... 
therefore, the order does not call for any interference particularly when there 
..,,_ 
is 110 merit in the appeal. 
979 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Justice Kaul had issued notice and had in fact granted interim 
protection to the appellant It is not shown that the appellant had brought to 
the notice of the Division Bench of the High Court about Justice Kaul having 
passed the order of admission. It cannot be laid as a rule of universal 
B application that whenever any Single Judge had dealt with a case even for 
routine purposes like issue of process or rectification of defect or even to 
pass an order of adjournment, that would preclude him from hearing the 
appeal. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere. Though it is 
factually correct, that Single Judge had issued Rule, that factual aspect was 
C not brought to notice of Division Bench. But the final view expressed by the 
Single Judge on merit as affirmed by the Division Bench does not suffer from 
any infirmity to warrant interference. 
D 
(Paras 10 ~nd 11) (982-E, F, GI 
S.K. Warikoo v. State of J&K and Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 677, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4266 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.2005 of the High Court of Delhi 
at New Delhi in LPA No. 79 of2005. 
E 
Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant. 
F 
Amarjeet ~f?gh, A.S.G., Ashwani Kumar, R.S. Rana and V.K Verma for 
the Respondents. • 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench 
diSmissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. The Division 
. Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the orders passed by 
G the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7990/2002 decided on 
3.12.2004. The basic issue was whether sub-division of land was permissible. 
The prayer in the writ petition was that direction be issued to the Delhi 
Development Authority (in short 'ODA') to sanction conversion of the 
appellant's share in the plot from leasehold to freehold. Stand of the appellant 
was that he was a co-sharer. Since lessee is permitted to assign a part of 
H premises, it was stated that prayer is acceptable. Reliance was placed on 
KULDEEPSINGHv. U.0.1.[PASA YAT,J.] 
981 
>· 
Clause 11 of the Indenture dated 22.8.1919 to contend that lessee is permitted A 
to assign even part of the demised premises. 
3. Learned Single Judge was of the view that if prayer is granted it 
would amount to a direction to amend the layout plan. It would also ha

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