UNION OF INDIA & ANR versus AVTAR SINGH & ANR .

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 04-04-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR 
v. 
AVTAR SINGH & ANR . 
• 
April 4, 1984 
(D. A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA E~AD!, JJ.] 
Punjab Refugees (RegiJtration of Land Claims). A ct; 1948-s. 33-
Revisional ppwer 'of Central Government-Scope of-Whether can be 
ex'ercised repeatedly. 
One Harnam Singh, filther of the respondents, was owner of some 
agricultural land in the erstwhile· Siad Province now forming part of 
Pakistan. 
After the partition of the country he along with· his· wife and 
three ·sons migrated to India. 
As displaced person,J:ie lodged a claim on 
March"lS, 194g in respect of his entire holding on Pakistan. 
On the 
introduction of the Punj.ab Refugees' (Registration of'La.nd Claims) Act, 
1948. on April 3, 1948 the said Harnam Singh, his sons and. his wife 
filed separate claims alh;ging that in 1946 there was an oral partition of 
the land which origioaIJy belonged to Ha.roam Singh. 
The claims were 
verifi~d and allotments were made in favour of each claimant. 
The 
Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected a .reference from the department 
and by his order dated August 21, 1961 held the allotments to be valid. 
Apprehending that tlle claim of ownership of I.and in Sind and the 
partitioD. between· himself, his sons and his wife and the allotnicnt of land 
was being re·examiped, on March 13, 1962 Haroam Singh submitted a 
represen~ation to the Government of India for issuing a direction under 
· s. 33 of the Act that the matter be treated as finally settled. 
On this 
representation, Shri N. _P. Dube, Joint Secretary to the Government·of 
India, Department of .Rehabilitation wrote a D. 0. let1er dated Ma)' 31, 
J 96f to Shri J.• M. Tandon, Deputy Secretary to the Government" of 
Puojab, Rehabilitation Department, saying, inter alia.- c'that there is no ' 
polnt in \\aitii1g any more and the mat~er should be finalised on lhe basis 
of the judical findings arrived ~t in the case. 
We also feel that there are 
no reasons to differ from those judicial pronouncemeots at this stage~ 
The record received from the Punjab Government is, the~efore, returned 
with thC request that the case may be finalised as mentioned above". 
It 
appears "thaf the Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation Departinent, 
Punjab Goeernment 
sublllitt~d a '·note to moVe the Central Government 
under s. 3 3 of the Act for reopening and cancellation of the order of the 
Chief Settlement Commissioner dated August 21, 1961. 
Thereupon a 
notice was issued to the allotees calling upon them to show cause why 
the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner datod August 21, 1961 
should not be set aside and allotment in .favour of each of them should 
A 
B 
Cl 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
. . 392 
A 
B 
~.: 
c 
D 
E 
\. 
G 
.. 
sUPREMll COURT REPORTS . 
!1984} 3 s·.c.R . 
not be cancel1ed. 
The al!otees contended that since.the power of revision 
conferred by s. · 33 of the Ac~ had already been exercised by the Central 
Government. the same pow.Jr Qf revision·could not be.repeatedly exercjsed 
particularly when no fresh material against the· allotees was prOduced 
after the ee).rlier decision. 
Ultimately a Joint Secretary to the Govern-
ment of India exercising Power of revision conferred bys. 33 by his order 
dated March 15; 1965 quashed and set aside the order of the Chief 
Settlement Comniissioner dat~d August 21, 1961 and further· directed that 
the .allotment of land in favour of Harbans Siog!'t~ bi~ sons and his 
wif~ 
be cancelled and that a fresh' allotment be made on the fc;>oting 
that 
Harnam Singh alone was_ the owot:_r of lb~ Ian~ situated in Sind. 
The 
validity of the order dat'd March 15, 1965 of the Joint Secretary was 
challenged in the.Higb,Court by two sons of Harnam Singh, respondents · 
in this apptaJ. 
~roadly agreeing with the view taken by- a learned o&in8;le 
Ju.dge, a Division Bench while dismissing the Letters: Patent appeal in the 
High Court, held that the D. 0. Le\ter of the Joint Secretary dated May 
31, .1963 conveyed the decision of the Government of India in exercise. of 
powers under s. 33 and therefore, the power of revision against the order 
: of the ·Chief Settlement Commissioner was eXhausted~because.a quasi .. 
judicial tribunal bad no power to revise or review its e·arncr decision on 
merltS even if the earlier decision was wrong on facts OJ law. Acc,ordingly , 
th.e.High Court ~eld·that the impugn,ed order of the Go.v~rnm:nt df.India 
•ctated March 15, 1965 was·witbout jurisdiction and w.5 invalid and' of 
-no lega

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