ROOP CHAND versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 539 · Decided: 10-10-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPREM.li: COURT REPORTS 
539 
of the Constitution nor does it infringe the equal pro-
tection clause of the Constitution; we also hold that 
the Notification dated April 19, 1955 did not vioiatl' 
Art. 14 of the Constitution. We are further of the 
view that the constitution of the Committees and the 
Advisory Board did not contravene the statutory pro-
visions in that behalf prescribed by the Legislature. 
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with 
costs. 
Appwl dismissed. 
ROOP CHAND 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, 
M. HIDAY.A.TULLAR and R.AGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Consolidation of Holdings-Appeal to State Govcrnment-
Pwtr.to hear appeal delegatd to o.fficer-Dtcision of such ojficu--
Rwi1ion of decision by State Government-Ltgality of-Funw-
mtntal right.-lf infringed by illegal ortier of State Govunrnrnt-
Eut Punjab Holdings (Comolidation and Prevention of Frag-
mtnta,tion) Act, J,948 (Punj. 50 of 1948), ss, 21 (4), 41 (/), i2-
Conatitution of India, Art. 32. 
Under the E. P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention 
of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, a scheme for consolidation of 
holdings was framed for the petitioner's village and a repartition 
of the lands was proposed. The petitioner objected to the 
repartition and contended that under the scheme he was entitlet1 
to retain his plots Nos. 635 and 636 and to get some more land 
adjacent to them in exchange for other lands belonging to him 
This contention was rejected by the Consolidation Officer 
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Office< 
1!02 
·\f/s. BhikusiJ 
Jilm111.t Kah:.ib'iV4 
v 
Stm~amntr A~tJ{& 
Taluk• Bitii Xcm:or 
U11U11 
Sh<h, J. 
1962 
1962 
Roop Chand 
v. 
Statt of Punjab 
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
but the appeal also failed. Against this the petitioner filed an 
appeal before the State Government under s. 21 (4) of the Act, 
which was heard by Shri Brar, Assistant Director, Consolidation, 
to whom the power to hear such appeals had been delegated 
uuder s. 41 (I). Shri Brar allowed the appeal and the petitioner 
became entitled to retain plots Nos. 635 and 636. 
Respondent 
No. 2 to whom these plots had been given on repartition moved 
the State Government under s. 42 to revise the order made by 
Shri Brar, and the State Government set aside the order of 
Shri Brar and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. The 
petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging 
the order of the State Government contending that under s. 42 
it could not interfere with an order made by itself or by an 
officer exercising powers of the Government delegated to him 
under s. 41 (1). 
,. 
Held (per Das, Sarkar and Dayal,JJ.) thats. 42 did not 
empower the State Government to interfere with an order 
passed by an officer to whom the power to hear appeals filed 
under s, 21 (4) had been delegated by it under s. 41 (1). The 
words "any order passed .... by an officer under this Act, in 
s. 42 did not include an order passed by an officer in exercise of 
·powers delegated to him by the Government under s. 41 (1). 
Section 21 ( 4) gives the power to the Government to hear 
appeals, and an order made in the exercise of that power, 
whether by the Government itself or by its delegate, would be 
an order of the Government. Section 42 was applicable to an 
order made by a subordinate officer exercising independent 
powers under the Act. 
Lo:kha Singh v. Director, 
CoMolidation of HoUinga, 
Punjab, A. I. R. (1959) Punj. 157, disapproved. 
The impugned order infringed the fundamental rights of 
the petitioner and be was entitled to a writ or direction from 
the Supteme Court. If the order was allowed to stand the 
petitioner would be deprived of plots Nos. 635 and 636 which 
were hi> property. 
Per Kapur and Hidayatullah,JJ.-The State Government 
had jurisdiction to revise the order made by Shri Brar. Under 
s. 42 the Government had over-all control at all stages of the 
Cunsoli<lation proceedings. An officer to whom powers were 
delegated under s. 41, though exercising the powers of the 
Government was still an officer of the State Government and 
his order was subject to the power of revision under s. 42. The 
order made by Shri Brar under s. 21 ( 4) was an order of re-
partition and was liable to be revised under s. 42. 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
541 
Lakha Singh v. Director, 
Oowiolidation of Holdings, 
Punjab, A. I. R. (1959) Punj. 157, approved. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Pe

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