http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CHHIDDA SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DV. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/02/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay Condoned.      Application for personal hearing is rejected.      We 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 above:      (A) 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.      (B) 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.      (C) Because  the  Dv.  Director  of      Consolidation has  erred gravely in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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.      (D) Because the order passed by the      Settlement Officer Consolidation is      final  and   binding  between   the      parties.      (E) 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.      (F) Because  as  a  result  of  the      order  of   the  Dv.   Director  of      Consolidation 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      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 fact.      (J) Because  the order  of the  Dv.      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 Dv.  director of  Consolidation      have justice.      (K) 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.      (L) 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    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 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. (From the  Judgment and  Order dated 29th Sept., 1989 of the Kerala High Court in ITR Nos. 571 & 572/85)