Chhidda Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors.

Delay condoned. Application for personal hearing is rejected. We have perused the review petition and the connected record. The G 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 H "K". The following tabular statement demonstrates what we have said above: . 1030 CHHIDDA SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 1031 '· (A) Because the High Court and (A) Because the High Court and A the Dy. Director of the Consolidation the Dy. Director of the Consolidation lost sight of the glaring position of law lost sight of t11e glaring position of law thatthe order passed by the Settlement t11at the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 2.12.1995, Officer Consolidation on 2.12.1995, after making spot inspection and after making spot inspection and B appreciation of all the documents and appreciation of all the documents and circumstances and facts of t11e case circumstances and facts of the case attained fmality under Sec. 21 (2) of the attained finality under Sec. 21 (2) of the C.H. Act. the said Settlement Officer C.H. Act. tl1e said Settlement Officer Consolidation was the Court of first Consolidation was the Court of first appeal and as such its decision was appeal and as such its decision was c final in so far as tl1e facts of tl1e case final in so far as the facts of the case were concerned. were concerned. (B) Because the High Court and (B) Because tl1e High Court and Dy. DirectorofConsolidationfailed to Dy. Director Consolidation failed to appreciate that the powers of the appreciate that the powers of the D revisional court under Sec. 48 of the revisional court under Sec. 48 of the C.H. Act are very limited restricted and C.H. Act are very limited restricted and are not the unfettered power to upset are not t11e unfettered powers to upset the orders of the Settlement Officer of t11e orders oft11e Settlement Officeron the Settlement Officer on the the question of fact, which order has E questions of fact, which order has attained finality. attained finality. (C) Because tl1e Dy. Director of (C) Because the Dy. Director of Consolidation has erred gravely in not Consolidation has erred gravely in not keeping in mind tile provision of Sec. keeping in mind tile provision of Sec. 19 (f) oftl1e U.P.C.H. Act which makes F " 19 (f) oftl1e U.P.C.H. Act which makes it necessary for tile allotment of the it necessary for tile allotment of the same chak to tile tenureholder wherein same chak to the tenureholder wherein his own source ofinigation is installed. ' Iris own source ofinigation is installed. (D) Because tl1e order passed by G (D) Because t11e order passed by t11e Settlement Officer Consolidation is ~ the Settlement Officer Consolidation is final and binding between the final and binding between the parties. parties. (E) Because the Dy. Director of Consolidation has acted without (E) Because the Dy. Directorof jurisdiction in vertually axing the order H 1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 1 S.(f'..R. A Consolidation has acted without jurisdiction in vertually axing the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was passed after appreciation of all the facts. B (F) Because as a result of t11e order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation the tubewell of the petitioner rendered useless. (G) Because the area left along C side the tubewell is not capable of being cultivated . (H) Because the respondents No. 3 to 6 already had lands in plot D No. 39, t11ere was no justification in allotting them more areas in plot No 39. (I) Because as a result of pro­ ceedings under the said C.H.Act, E the areas of lands belonging to the present petitioners have been unco­ nsolidated and scattered, and the very spirit for initiating the consolidation of holdings proceedings have been thrown to winds. The present F petitioner has been allocated chaks by the Dy. 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, G it has no source of irrigation, besides the land thereof, is of inferior quality, and the Dy. Director of Consolidation has not adverted himself to this glaring fact. H (J) Because the orderof the Dy. of the Settlement Officer Consoli­ dation, which was passed after appreciation of all t11e facts. (F) Because as a result of the order of the Dy. Director of Consolid­ ation the tubewell of the petitioner rendered useless. (G} Because the area left along side the tubewell is not capable of being cultivated . (H) 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. (I) Because as a result of pro­ ceedings under the said C.H. Act, the areas oflands belonging to the present petitioners have been unconsolida­ ted and scattered, and the very spirit for initiating tllc consolidation of holdings proceedings have been thrown to winds. The present petitioner has been allocated chaks by the Dy. Director of Consolidation atfar away from t11e 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 tlle land thereof, is of inferior quality, and the Dy. Director of Consolidation has not adverted himself to this glaring fact. (J) Because the orderoftlle Dy. Director of Consolidation is sheer abuse of the process of tlle Court. CHHIDDASJNGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 1033 Director of Consolidation is sheer abuse of the process of the Court. (K) Because the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Dy. director of Consolidation have justice. (K) Because the High Court has not given a serious thought to the legality of the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 30 .. 8.19%. (L) Because the order of the High Court as well as the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 re­ liable to be set aside. (K) Because the impugned order A of the High Court as well as that of the Dy. director of Consolidation have occasioned failure of justice. (K) Because the High Court has not given a serious thought to the B legality of the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 30 .. 8.19%. (L) Because the order of the High Court as well as the Dy. Director C of Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 are liable to be set aside. Even in the other paragraphs of the review petition, there is only verbatim reproduction of the corresponding paragraphs from the special leave petition. We view this with concern and deprecate the casual and irresponsible E 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. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed with Rs. 5,000 as costs, which amount shall be recovered under Rules: F T.N.A. Petition dismissed.