Allowed

Juggal Kishore v. Addl. Director Consolidation Hry & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2011CWP/4363/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the Additional Director consolidating holdings lacked jurisdiction to exercise a power of review under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act as the statute conferred no such power. Consequently, the additional petition filed on the same facts was impermissible.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 25.4.1989 passed by the Additional Director is set aside. The order dated 25.6.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer is also set aside.

Juggal Kishore Vs Addl. Director Consolidation Hry… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 4363 of 1991 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 4363 of 1991 Date of Decision: 5.7.2011

¶4

Jugal Kishore Ex-Sarpanch Versus

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Additional Director Consolidation of Haryana and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

Present: Mr. S.N.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Y.P.Malik, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. ( ORAL)

¶12

The short point that arises for adjudication is whether the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, exercising powers of the State Government under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Consolidation Act”) is empowered to exercise power of review.

¶13

The petitioner, in essence, prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 25.4.1989 and 25.6.1990, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation Haryana and the Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, respectively.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that Paltu Ram respondent No.3 (since deceased) filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act, alleging that he has not been allotted land that was in his possession prior to consolidation of holdings. The Additional

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 4363 of 1991 2

¶16

Director, Consolidation, dismissed the petition on 17.11.1987 by holding that respondent No.3 is an unauthorised occupant and is, therefore, not entitled to allotment of land. The petitioner, instead of impugning the order by way of a writ petition, filed a fresh petition under Section 42 of the Act. The Additional Director, Consolidation, ignored the order dated 17.11.1987, passed by his predecessor, accepted the petition and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer to consider the claim of respondent No.3 afresh. The Additional Director, Consolidation also ordered that if found tenable, land should be allotted in accordance with entitlement. The Consolidation Officer allotted land, reserved for the Gram Panchayat, to respondent No.3.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Section 42 of the Act nor any other provision of the Act confers the power of review upon the State Government or its delegate. The Additional Director, Consolidation, therefore, had no jurisdiction to ignore the order dated 17.11.1987, passed by his predecessor. Reliance for the above argument is placed upon the following judgments :- Deep Chand and others Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and another, AIR 1964 Punjab 249; Sher Singh Vs. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others 1971 P.L.J. 754; Jagtar Singh and others versus The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 1984 P.L.J. 310, Zile Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others, 1984 P.L.J. 314; Sarup Singh Versus the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others, 1989 P.L.J. 145; Amar Singh Versus Gram Panchayat, Sabun, 1992 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 42; Ram Singh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 4363 of 1991 3

¶19

and another, 1992 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 43.

¶20

Counsel for the private respondents submits that the Additional Director has merely corrected an error in consolidation proceedings. The respondents' entitlement to allotment of land has been upheld by the Consolidation Officer, after remand and therefore to set aside the impugned order on technicalities would be highly unjust and inequitable.

¶21

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, the provisions of Consolidation Act, and the judgments referred to hereinabove.

¶22

The power to review an order is neither inherent nor plenary but may be exercised only if conferred by the statute under which an authority or an officer exercises power. The absence of a statutory provision, conferring the power of review prohibits an authority exercising power under an Act, from ignoring an order passed by its predecessor or exercising such a power, except to the extent of correcting clerical or typographical errors. The Consolidation Act does not contain any provision that confers the power of review upon any officer, much less an officer exercising power under Section 42 of the Act. Reference in this regard may be made to a Full Bench Judgement of this Court in Deep Chand's case (supra).

¶23

As is apparent from narrative of facts, respondent no.3 filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on 17.11.1987. Respondent No. 3, thereafter, filed a second petition, under Section 42 of the Act, on the same set of facts and the same cause. The Additional Director, Consolidation, entertained the petition, reconsidered the entire controversy, and passed the impugned order, in essence, negating

¶24

Civil Writ Petition No. 4363 of 1991 4

¶25

the order dated 17.11.1987 passed by the Director Consolidation. The Additional Director had no jurisdiction, in the absence of the power of review, to pass the impugned order. The second petition on the same set of facts and the same cause, could not be entertained much less allowed.

¶26

In view of error of jurisdiction committed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 25.4.1989, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation is set aside. As a necessary consequence, the order dated 25.6.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer is also set aside with liberty to respondent no. 3 to challenge order dated 17.11.1987 in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶27

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶28

5.7.2011 VK

Juggal Kishore v. Addl. Director Consolidation Hry & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juggal Kishore v. Addl. Director Consolidation Hry & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Singh Vs Director Rural Development Pb.

Hazara Singh Vs Collector ,Patiala and Another

Mehar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Avtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.