- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ran Singh And Others v. The Additional Direc...
Factual and Procedural Background
The live petitioners, khewatdars of village Ghandoli in Kharar Tehsil, challenged an order passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation on 6th August 1963, which reviewed a prior order dated 5th October 1962. Initially, the Consolidation Officer on 17th September 1960, under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, recognized the right of possession of Behari Lal Batra (second respondent) as “undisputed” and passed orders accordingly. It was noted that Behari Lal Batra had willingly forgone interest in trees on old khasra No. 235.
Subsequently, Behari Lal Batra petitioned under section 42 of the Act, contending that mango trees on khasra No. 235 were not recorded as his property in the revenue records during consolidation. The parties were heard on 6th June 1962, but the order was pronounced on 5th October 1962 in their absence and on grounds not raised at the hearing. The Additional Director dismissed the petition on the basis that Behari Lal Batra had sold the land on 7th March 1961 and thus lacked locus standi when filing the petition on 12th March 1962.
Behari Lal Batra then sought a review of the 5th October 1962 order. The Additional Director’s review order dated 6th August 1963 found that the trees were never sold to the vendees and that no mutation had been sanctioned regarding the land sale. After hearing both parties, the Additional Director concluded that the Panchayat failed to establish rights to the mango trees and allotted these to the second respondent.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the order passed by the Additional Director on 5th October 1962 could be reviewed by his successor under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act, 1948.
- Whether an order passed in the absence of the parties and on grounds not urged at the hearing can be reviewed or set aside.
- The question of locus standi of the petitioner, given the sale of the land prior to filing the petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Deep Chand v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, ILR 1964 (1) Punj 665 (AIR 1964 Punj 249) (Full Bench) | A judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal has no inherent power to rehear, review, alter or vary any judgment or order once entered, except where orders are void or parties were not heard. | The court relied on this precedent to observe that orders passed without hearing parties may be reviewed, justifying the review of the 5th October 1962 order. |
| Shivdev Singh & Others v. State Of Punjab & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1909 | Orders passed in the absence of parties may be set aside in the interests of justice. | The court referred to this case as authority supporting review of orders where parties were not heard, consistent with the Full Bench decision cited. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the initial order dated 5th October 1962 was passed in the absence of the parties and on grounds not raised at the hearing on 6th June 1962, specifically the issue of locus standi based on a land sale transaction. This ground was found untenable by the Additional Director in the subsequent review. The court analyzed the Full Bench decision in Deep Chand, which restricts review of judicial or quasi-judicial orders except in cases where orders are void or parties were not heard. The court emphasized that the order under review was passed without hearing the parties on the critical issue, thus falling within the exception allowing review. Consequently, the Additional Director’s decision to review and set aside the earlier order was justified. The court found no grounds to interfere with the review order dismissing the petition.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The court dismissed the petition for revision, upholding the Additional Director’s review order dated 6th August 1963. The direct effect is that the order passed on 5th October 1962, which dismissed the petitioner’s claim on locus standi grounds, remains set aside. The mango trees were allotted to the second respondent as per the review. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies the established principle that orders passed without hearing parties may be reviewed and set aside in the interest of justice.
1. The live petitioners, who are khewatdars of village Ghandoli in Kharar Tehsil, have challenged the order passed by Additional Director of Consolidation on 6th of August, 1963, reviewing the order of his predecessor passed on 5th of October, 1962.
2. An order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 17th of September, 1960, on an application made before him under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in which the right of possession of Beliari Lal Batra, the second respondent, was found to be “undisputed” and orders for implementation were passed. In the foot-note to this order, it is mentioned that the respondent Behari Lal Batra “has stated to forgo the interest in trees in old khasra No. 235 willingly which is accepted……Announced.” Subsequently, another petition was moved by Behari Lal Batrd, the second respondent, under section 42 of the Act, the main grievance being that mango trees growing in the previous Khasra No. 235 had not been shown as his property in the revenue record during consolidation operations. The parties were heard by the Additional Director on 6th of June, 1962. Orders were, however, pronounced on 5th of October, 1962, when the parties were not present and on grounds which were not urged at the time of hearing on 6th of June, 1962. It was observed by the Additional Director in the order of 5th of October, 1962, that:
“I find from the record that the petitioner had sold the land in question vide registered deed dated 7th of March, 1961 that mutation No. 645 had also been entered and attested with respect to this transaction. The present petition was filed on 12th of March, 1962, it is obvious that the petition was filed by him (Behari Lal) when he was no longer a right-holder in this village. He, therefore, in my opinion had no locus standi to file this petition.”
3. Holding, therefore, that the petitioner had no locus standi the revision petition was dismissed.
4. The Additional Director was moved once again to review the order which had been passed on 5th of October, 1962. In the finding of the Additional Director recorded in the impugned order of 6th of August, 1963 (Annexure C),
“the trees were never sold to the vendees, on the other hand the sale deed mentioned that 16 mango trees will be the property of the petitioner and will be removed by the petitioner…”.
5. It has also been found that no mutation had been sanctioned regarding sale of this land which was the basis of the order passed on 5th of October, 1862. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Director reached the conclusion that the Panchayat had not been able to make good its right to the mango trees and consequently allotted these to the second respondent.
6. It is contended by Mr. Dalip Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the order passed by the Additional Director on 5th of October, 1962, could not have been reviewed by his successor-in-office under section 42 of the Act. Reliance is placed on a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Deep Chand v. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, ILR 1964 (1) Punj 665 : (AIR 1964 Punj 249) (FB) in which it was held that a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal has no inherent power to rehear, review, alter or vary any judgment or order after it has been entered or drawn up, on the ground that it is later considered to be erroneous on the merits. It is to be observed, however, that orders which are void are not subject to this inhibition and at page 685, the specific case where parties had not been heard on a previous occasion is excepted from the general rule that orders passed on merits cannot be reviewed. In Shivdev Singh & Others v. State Of Punjab & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1909 G.D Khosla, J. had set aside the previous order in the interests of justice because the parties had not been heard and their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld that order. This case had been relied upon in the Full Bench case and it has been observed that orders which are passed in absence of the parties may lie reviewed.
7. Realistically speaking, the order of 5th of October, 1962, was passed in absence of the parties. Though on the previous hearing the parties were present and were heard, the ground on which the petition was dismissed four months later was found by the Additional Director in the impugned order to be untenable.
8. That ground was not raised by the parties at the time of hearing and seems to have been taken sue motu by the Additional Direct himself.
9. In these circumstances, I do not think that there is any ground for interference in this petition for revision which fails and is dismissed I would, however, make no order as to costs.
KH/MES/V.B.B
10. Petition dismissed.
Alert