Rattan Dev Singh vs The Director, Consodidation of Holdings and Others

V.D. Misra, C.J.—By this writ petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Directoi, Consolidation of Holdings, exercising the powers of the State Government (Annexure-PB)

Rattan Dev Singh, Petitioner, and Dharam Dev Singh, Respondent No. 2, and Fatch Dev Singh, Respondent No. 3, are brothers. Their village came under the consolidation operations in the year 1962 under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (referred to as the Act). An appeal was preferred u/s 21(4) of the Act before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Jullundur. This appeal was decided on 10th June, 1966. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 filed separate revision petitions u/s 42 of the Act. After the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab, both the revisions were transferred to Himachal Pradesh and were heard by Respondent No. 1 exercising the powers of the State Government u/s 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. These revisions were disposed of by the Director by an order dated 4th August, 1980. By this order certain changes were made in the allotment of the lands in terms of the statements made by the parties before the Director. Thereafter Respondent No. 2 filed a review application before the Director. The present Petitioner raised an objection submitting that the Director had no powers of review. The Director while up-holding this objection that the Director does not have any powers of review under the relevant Act, came to the conclusion that he had inherent power to review. He, therefore, proceeded to review his previous order and partitioned 25 ghumaons of land which was the joint property of the brothers. It may be noticed that while deciding the review, the Director had specifically refused to partition this property with the following observations:

Regarding the contention of Shri Dharam Dev Singh to partition the joint holding of 25 Ghumaons, in my opinion, it is not feasible now to undo the consolidation operations which concluded as early as 1966, i.e. after 14 years when a lot of changes might have taken place in this joint holding. If any of the parties so desire it may go to appropriate revenue authority to get the joint holding partitioned in normal course.

Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Director had no power to review his earlier order. Mr. P.N. Nag, learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, submits that what the Director was doing was to rectify the mistakes which he could do u/s 56 of the H.P. Act. He also submits that the Director had the inherent power to review his previous order.

My attention has been drawn to a Special Full Bench of five Judges of the Punjab High Court in Deep Chand and Ors. v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Anr. AIR 1964 P&H 249 . The question before this Bench was whether the Assistant Director could review his earlier order. It may be noticed that the relevant provisions in the Punjab and H.P. Act are the same. While over-ruling its Full Bench decision in Jagir Singh Sobha Singh and Another Vs. Settlement Commissioner, Pepsu and Others, the Bench after considering various decisions observed thus:

These decisions illustrate the narrow and restricted limits within which the inherent power of relieving suitors from the mistakes of Courts may legitimately be invoked for promoting the cause of justice which, according to our system, is administered according to law; they clearly do not lend any support to the broad and unqualified proposition that Courts are empowered to recall or review their earlier erroneous and unjust orders whenever it is discovered that the error was due to their own mistaken view on the merits of the controversy and the observations in V.G. Paterson Vs. O.V. Forbes and Others, clearly seem to negative it.

It was, thus, held that the Additional Director was not competent to recall or review his orders on the merits of the case.

No doubt Section 56 of the H.P. Act empowers the Tribunal to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by any officer under the Act. However, it does not empower the officer to recall his order on merits and redecidc the same.

In the instant case the Director had rejected the plea of partitioning 25 ghumaons of joint land between the brothers. This was done while disposing of the revisions of the parties. Thereafter the impugned order partitioning this land was passed. I do not find it a case of clerical or arithmetical mistakes which were purported to be corrected. The Director unambiguously held that he had the inherent power to review and so he proceeded to review the order on merits.

Mr. Nag has pointed out that according to the scheme it was the duty of the Consolidation Officers to partition this part of the joint land also and by failing to do so they had made a mistake. In my opinion, if this was their duty, then the Director had evidently passed a wrong order on merits and this order could only be corrected by a review if the Director had such powers. Since he had no such powers, he was acting without jurisdiction and the, present impugned order was indeed void.

Shivdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and submits that the powers of review are indeed inherent. I have gone through this judgment. I find that the Supreme Court was seized of the question whether a High Court is precluded from exercising the powers of review to prevent miscarriage of justice in a case which was decided in the exercise of its extraordinary original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing in Article 226 "to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it". In this case the High Court had passed an order which affected the interests of persons who were not made parties before the Court. In my opinion this decision is of no heir to the Respondents because the High Court was exercising jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.

My attention has been drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, in which it was ruled that the power to review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. I find that this rule was laid down while considering the tenancy laws of Saurashtra.

The petition it accepted with cost and the impugned order is hereby set aside.