Singh Vs. Dv. Director of Consolidation & Ors  INSC 110 (19 February 1998)
Anand, K. Venkataswami
O R D
for personal hearing is rejected.
have perused the review petition and the connected record. The casual and
irresponsible manner in which the review petition has been filed is self
evident. The grounds in the review petition and in the special leave petition
are verbatim the same even to the extent of the mistakes. In the grounds of special
leave petition, there are two paragraphs marked "K" and in the
grounds of the review petition also, there are two paragraphs marked
"K". The following tabular statement demonstrates what we have said
Because the High Court and the Dv. Director of the Consolidation lost sight of
the glaring position of law that the order passed by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation on 2.12.1995, after making spot inspection and appreciation of
all the documents and circumstances and facts of the case attained finality
under Sec. 21(2) of the C.H. Act. the said Settlement Officer Consolidation was
the Court of first appeal and as such its decision was final in so far as the
facts of the case were concerned.
Because the High Court and Dv. Director Consolidation failed to appreciate that
the powers of the revisional court under Sec. 48 of the C.H. Act are very
limited restricted and are not the unfettered power to upset the order of the
Settlement Officer of the Settlement Officer on the question of fact, which
order has attained finality.
Because the Dv. Director of Consolidation has erred gravely in not keeping in
mind the provision of Sec. 19 (f) of the U.P.C.H. Act which makes it necessary
for the allotment of the same chak to the tenureholder wherein his own source
of irrigation is installed.
Because the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is final and
binding between the parties.
Because the Dv. Director of Consolidation has acted without jurisdiction in
vertually axing the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was
passed after appreciation of all the facts.
Because as a result of the order of the Dv. Director of Consolidation the
tubewell of the petitioner rendered useless.
Because the area left along side the tubewell is not capable of being
Because the respondents No. 3 to 6 already had lands in plot No.39 there was no
justification in allotting them more areas in plot No 39.
Because as a result of proceedings under the said C.H.Act, the areas of lands
belonging to the present petitioners have been unconsolidated and scattered,
and the very spirit for initiating the consolidation of holdings proceedings
have been thrown to winds. The present petitioner has been allocated chaks by
the Dv. Director of Consolidation at far away from the other chaks.e.q. the
chak No. 98 is far away from the abadi of the petitioner, not only this, it has
no source of irrigation, besides the land thereof, is of inferior quality, and
the Dv. Director of Consolidation has not adverted himself to this glaring
Because the order of the Dv. Director of Consolidation is sheer abuse of the
process of the Court.
Because the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Dv.
director of Consolidation have justice.
Because the High Court has not given a serious thought to the legality of the
order of the Dv. Director of Consolidation dated 30..8.1996.
Because the order of the High Court as well as the Dv. Director of
Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 and liable to be set aside.
in the other paragraphs of the review petition, there is only verbatim
reproduction of the corresponding paragraphs from the special leave petition.
view this with concern and deprecate the casual and irresponsible manner of
filing such review petitions which unnecessarily waste the time of the Court.
No existence of an error, much less error apparent on the face of the order,
while dismissing the SLP, has even been alleged, let alone demonstrated in the
review petition. The filing of the review petition is an abuse of the process
of this Court.
review petition is, therefore, dismissed with Rs.5,000/- as costs, which amount
shall be recovered under Rules.