Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5767 OF 2002

Harbhajan Singh                                         …     Appellant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.                     … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated  

21.09.2001 of  the  Division  Bench of  the  Himachal  Pradesh  

High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.438 of 1999 filed by the  

appellant (Harbhajan Singh).

2. The relevant facts  very briefly  are  that  on 03.10.1986,  

the Director of Land Consolidation Department, Government  

of  Himachal  Pradesh,  issued  a  notice  under  Section  14  of  

the     Himachal  Pradesh  Holdings  (Consolidation  and  

Prevention      of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’)  

declaring that           in  the interest of general public and

better cultivation of      agricultural land, the Government has  

made a  plan for  land consolidation  of  14 villages including  

Revenue Estate Damtal Khas. In Revenue Estate Damtal Khas,  

the  appellant  (Harbhajan  Singh)  and  the  respondent  No.2  

(Mandir Damtal) owned land.  The land of the appellant was  

valued at 1 anna.  The Appellant filed objections saying that  

his land was located on the road side and was of much higher  

value  considering  its  commercial  importance.   The  

Consolidation Officer in his order dated 15.12.1986 held the  

objection of the appellant to be correct and ordered the value  

of the land to be 16 annas.  There was a proposal during the  

consolidation  proceedings  for  exchanging  the  land  of  the  

appellant  in  khasra  No.171/1  with  the  land  of  respondent  

No.2 in khasra No.171. The value of the land of respondent  

No.2 in  khasra No.171 was proposed as 16 annas and the  

appellant objected to this valuation saying that the value of  

the land of  respondent No.2 in khasra No.171 should be 1  

anna only.  By order dated 01.04.1988, the Land Acquisition  

Officer  held  that  the  correction  of  valuation  of  the  land  of  

respondent  No.2  in  khasra  No.171  was  beyond  his

jurisdiction.   The  appellant  filed  an  appeal  before  the  

Settlement Officer who by order dated 19.05.1989 gave some  

additional  land  to  the  appellant  but  did  not  change  the  

valuation of the land of respondent No.2 in khasra No.171 to 1  

anna as claimed by the appellant.  The appellant then filed a  

revision before the Director of Consolidation under Section 54  

of the Act and the Additional Director (Consolidation) by his  

order dated 15.07.1996 set aside the order dated 19.05.1989  

of the Settlement Officer and held that it was not justified to  

give the same value to khasra No.171 and khasra No.171/1.  

The  Additional  Director  further  held  that  as  a  result  of  

correction of the valuation of the land, the net deficiency in  

allotment of area to the appellant comes to 3-87-47 hectares  

standard  area  and  the  excess  of  area  of  respondent  No.2  

comes to 3-51-81 hectares standard area and, therefore, the  

excess area allotted to respondent No.2 is to be excluded from  

the  area  of  respondent  No.2  and  is  to  be  included  in  the  

holding of the appellant to make his deficiency in the allotted  

area.   This  order  of  Additional  Director  (Consolidation)  was  

given effect to by the Consolidation Officer in his order dated

28.12.1996.   

2. The  order  dated  15.07.1996  passed  by  the  Additional  

Director  was  challenged  by  the  lessees  of  land  of  

respondent No.2 (for short ‘the lessees’) in a Writ Petition  

C.W.P.  No.33  of  1997.   The  lessees  withdrew  C.W.P.  

No.33  of  1997  and  filed  a  fresh  writ  petition  C.W.P.  

No.185 of 1997 challenging the order dated 15.07.1996  

of Additional Director.  By order dated 26.05.1997, the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  dismissed  C.W.P.  

No.185 of 1997.  The lessees filed Review Petition No.26  

of 1997 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of  

the High Court on 23.06.1997.  The lessees filed Special  

Leave Petitions (C) No.17105 and 17106 of 1997 before  

this  Court  and  by  order  dated  22.09.1997  this  Court  

dismissed the  special  leave  petitions.   On 27.09.1999,  

however,  the  State  Government  of  Himachal  Pradesh  

issued a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 16  

of the Act cancelling the declaration dated 03.10.1986 of  

the  Director,  Land  Consolidation  Department,  

Government of  Himachal  Pradesh,  under Section 14 of

the Act to the extent the declaration related to Revenue  

Estate Damtal Khas.  As a consequence, Revenue Estate  

Damtal Khas ceased to be under consolidation operation  

with  effect  from  27.09.1999.   Aggrieved,  the  appellant  

filed Civil  Writ  Petition No.438 of 1999 challenging the  

notification  dated  27.09.1999  in  the  High  Court  of  

Himachal Pradesh and by the impugned judgment and  

order,  the Division Bench of  the High Court  dismissed  

the writ petition.

3. The contention  of  the  appellant  before  the  High Court  

was that the notification dated 27.09.1999 issued under  

Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  by  the  State  Government  

cancelling  the  declaration under  Section 14 of  the  Act  

was  arbitrary,  unreasonable  and  vitiated  by  mala  fide  

inasmuch  as  it  was  issued  after  13  years  from  the  

declaration under Section 14 of the Act in 1986 and after  

the consolidation proceedings were finalized,  completed  

and  even  implemented  and  the  real  object  of  the  

notification was to set at naught the orders passed by the  

Consolidation  Authorities  and  the  Court.   The  further

contention of  the  appellant  before  the  High Court  was  

that before issuing the notification under Section 16(1) of  

the  Act  no  opportunity  whatsoever  was  given  to  the  

appellant to press his case before the State Government  

and, therefore, the notification was issued in violation of  

the principles of natural justice.  On behalf of the State  

Government, it was contented that no notification under  

sub-section  (1)  of  Section  15  of  the  Act  closing  the  

consolidation  operation  in  the  Revenue  Estate  Damtal  

had been issued by the State Government and, therefore,  

it  was  open  to  the  State  Government  to  cancel  the  

declaration under Section 16(1) of the Act and that the  

notification was issued in the larger public interest and  

that principles of natural justice were not required to be  

followed  by  the  State  Government  before  issuing  the  

notification.   The contention of  respondent No.2 before  

the High Court was that the valuation of khasra Nos.171  

and  171/1  fixed  by  the  Additional  Director  

(Consolidation) had caused serious prejudice to Mandir  

Damtal  and had given undue benefits to the appellant

inasmuch as valuation of the property of Mandir Damtal  

was  reduced  from 16  annas   to  1  anna,  whereas  the  

valuation of the property belonging to the appellant was  

increased from 1 anna to 16 annas and all this was done  

in connivance and collusion with the State Government  

Officers.   The  High  Court  found  that  the  Deputy  

Commissioner,  Kangra,  had  submitted  a  report  dated  

04.01.1999 to the Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary  

(Revenue),  Government  of  Himachal  Pradesh,  in  which  

the  extent  of  cultivable  land of  private  land-owners  in  

Revenue Estate Damtal was stated to be negligible and it  

was also stated that the holdings of almost all the land-

owners  in  the  Revenue  Estate  except  that  of  Damtal  

Temple  (respondent  No.2)  and  Harbhajan  Singh  

(appellant)  remained  unaffected  by  the  consolidation  

operation inasmuch as the land which the other land-

owners  held  before  the  consolidation  operation  was  

allotted to them in the consolidation operation also and it  

was only the land belonging to Damtal Temple and the  

land belonging to Harbhajan Singh, which were sought to

be exchanged.  In the report, the Deputy Commissioner  

therefore  observed  that  no  useful  purpose  has  been  

served by taking up the consolidation operation in the  

Revenue  Estate  Damtal  and  recommended  that  the  

declaration made under Section 14 of the Act for taking  

up  consolidation  operation  in  the  Revenue  Estate  be  

cancelled  under  Section  16  of  the  Act  with  a  view  to  

restore normalcy in the area.  The High Court held that  

the notification under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling  

the declaration under Section 14 of the Act was issued by  

the State Government in larger public interest and was  

also  issued  before  the  closure  of  the  consolidation  

operation  under  Section  15(1)  of  the  Act  and was  not  

arbitrary and unreasonable.  The High Court further held  

that non-issuance of the notification would have resulted  

in public mischief and extension of undue benefits to the  

appellant causing loss and injury to the respondent No.2  

which was public trust. Thus, the High Court held that  

the notification dated 27.09.1999 issued under Section  

16(1) of the Act was legal, valid and in accordance with

law.

4. Mr.  P.S.  Narasimha,  learned Senior  Counsel  appearing  

for the appellant, submitted that the High Court was not  

right in coming to the conclusion that the power under  

Section 16(1)  of  the Act could be invoked by the State  

Government to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1)  

of the Act in respect of the Revenue Estate Damtal.  He  

argued that though Section 16(1) of the Act empowers the  

State Government to cancel the declaration made under  

Section 14 of the Act in respect of any area “at any time”,  

the  State  Government  cannot  exercise  powers  under  

Section 16(1) of the Act after the consolidation authorities  

had finalized the consolidation proceedings.  He cited the  

decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in  

Chahat Khan Bahadur Khan and others  v. The State  of   

Punjab and others [AIR 1966 Punjab 111], in which the  

expression “at any time”  in Section 36 of  East Punjab  

(Consolidation  and  Prevention  of  Fragmentation)  Act,  

1948 arose for interpretation before the High Court and  

the High Court held that this expression though wide has

limitations as spelled out from the context in which it is  

used  and  would  mean  the  time  and  duration  of  the  

jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).   He  

submitted that in the present case after the order dated  

15.07.1996  was  passed  by  the  Additional  Director  

(Consolidation) making final allotment of the area to the  

appellant and after the Consolidation Officer by his order  

dated  28.12.1996  gave  effect  to  the  order  dated  

15.07.1996 of the Additional Director (Consolidation), the  

jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities came to an  

end and therefore no notification could be issued under  

Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  by  the  State  Government  

cancelling the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act.  

5. Mr. Narasimha next submitted that the notification dated  

27.09.1999  issued  by  the  State  Government  under  

Section 16(1) of the Act is arbitrary and vitiated by legal  

mala  fides inasmuch  as  it  was  issued  by  the  State  

Government with an object to set at naught the orders  

passed by the consolidation authorities in favour of the  

appellant,  which have  been upheld  by  the  High Court

and  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  writ  petition  and  the  

special  leave  petition.   He  submitted  that  the  State  

Government  could  have,  in  exercise  of  its  revisional  

powers under Section 54 of the Act, examined the legality  

and propriety of the order dated 15.07.1996 passed by  

the Additional  Director (Consolidation),  but instead the  

State  Government  exercised  its  powers  under  Section  

16(1)  of  the  Act  and  cancelled  the  declaration  under  

Section  14(1)  of  the  Act  in  relation  to  Revenue Estate  

Damtal Khas for extraneous considerations.  He cited the  

decision of this Court in  S. Pratap Singh v.  The State of   

Punjab, [1964 (4) SCR 733] for the proposition that when  

the dominant purpose of exercise of a power is unlawful  

then  the  act  itself  is  unlawful  and  it  is  not  cured  by  

saying that there was some other purpose for exercise of  

the  power,  which was lawful.    He  argued that  in  the  

present  case,  the  dominant  purpose  of  issuing  the  

notification  under  Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  was  to  

frustrate  the  order  dated  15.07.1996  passed  by  the  

Additional  Director  (Consolidation)  in  favour  of  the

appellant as confirmed by the orders passed by the High  

Court and the Supreme Court in writ petition and special  

leave petition and therefore the notification issued under  

Section 16(1) of the Act is bad in law even if some other  

lawful purposes may be the object of the notification.   

6. Mr.  Narasimha  finally  submitted  that  the  notification  

dated 27.09.1999 of the State Government under Section  

16(1) of the Act was also violative of principles of natural  

justice  as  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Deputy  

Commissioner on the basis of which the notification was  

issued  was  not  supplied  to  the  appellant  and  no  

opportunity whatsoever was given to the appellant before  

the  notification  was  issued  by  the  State  Government.  

According to Mr. Narasimha, the High Court should have  

quashed the notification dated 27.09.1999 issued under  

Section 16(1) of the Act and allowed the writ petition of  

the appellant.   

7. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the  

State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent no.1, submitted  

that Sections 2(7), 4, 14 and 32 of the Act would show

that the Act applies to agricultural or cultivable land.  He  

argued  that  the  report  of  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  

Kangra  which  was  submitted  to  the  Finance  

Commissioner-cum-Secretary  (Revenue),  Government  of  

Himachal  Pradesh  clearly  indicated  that  the  extent  of  

cultivable  land  of  the  private  land-owners  in  Revenue  

Estate  Damtal  was negligible  and that  the  holdings  of  

almost all the land-owners of the cultivable land in the  

Revenue Estate  except  that  of  Damtal  Temple  and the  

appellant  remained  unaffected  by  the  consolidation  

operation and that the consolidation operation only was  

confined to exchange of land of Damtal Temple with the  

land  of  the  appellant,  which  had  stone  quarries  and  

which  was  not  cultivable.   On  these  facts,  the  State  

Government  issued  the  notification  dated  27.09.1999  

under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the declaration  

under  Section  14(1)  of  the  Act  in  the  larger  public  

interest  because  the  object  of  the  Act  was  not  being  

achieved by the consolidation operations.   Mr.  Sharma  

submitted  that  this  is  not  a  case  where  the  State

Government has exercised its power under Section 16(1)  

of the Act for purposes extraneous to the object of the  

Act.  

8. Mr. Sharma next submitted that the expression “at any  

time”  in  Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  is  very wide and the  

State Government can issue a notification under Section  

16(1)  of  the  Act  at  any  time before  the  closure  of  the  

consolidation operations under Section 15(1) of the Act.  

He further submitted that there is nothing in Section 16  

of the Act to indicate that the State Government has to  

comply  with  the  principles  of  natural  justice  before  

issuing the notification under Section 16(1) of the Act.   

9. Mr.  Neeraj  Malhotra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  

respondent no.2, adopted the contentions of the learned  

counsel  appearing  for  respondent  no.1.   He  also  

submitted that until the year 1996, Damtal Temple was  

being managed by the Mahanto and because of collusion  

between the Mahanto of the Temple and the appellant,  

the  interest  of  the  Temple  was  in  jeopardy  during  the  

consolidation proceedings.  He further submitted that in

fact  in  the  proceedings  before  the  Additional  Director  

(Consolidation) relating to valuation and allotment of the  

land to the different parties, Damtal Temple was not a  

party  and  the  order  of  the  Additional  Director  

(Consolidation) was obtained by the appellant behind the  

back of the Damtal Temple causing grave loss and injury  

to the Temple.  

10. Mr.  S.  Balakrishnan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  

respondent no.4, submitted that although the mutation  

entry was made in favour of the appellant on 19.01.1997  

in respect of the land of the Damtal Temple in khasra No.  

171, possession in respect of the land was not delivered  

to the appellant.   He referred to the provisions of Section  

32  of  the  Act  and  Rule  18  of  the  Himachal  Pradesh  

Holdings  (Consolidation  and  Prevention  of  

Fragmentation) Rules, 1973 (for short ‘the Rules’) to show  

the manner in which possession of a holding has to be  

given  to  a  person  after  allotment  to  him  in  the  

consolidation proceedings.  He submitted that Section 35  

of the Act is very clear that only after a person entitled to

possession of the plot allotted to him is given possession  

in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  Section  32  that  he  

acquires his rights, title and interest in the plot allotted  

to him.  He argued that in the present case since the  

appellant has not been given possession of the land in  

khasra No. 171 in accordance with Section 32 of the Act  

and Rule 18 of the Rules, he had not acquired any right,  

interest  or  title  in  the  land in  khasra  No.  171,  which  

remained with the Damtal Temple.   

11. Sections 14, 15, 16, 32, 34 and 35 of the Act and Rule 18  

of the Rules, which are relevant for deciding this case,  

are extracted hereunder:  

“Section14.Declaration regarding consolidation  –  (1) The State Government may declare that in the   interests of the general public and for the purposes of  better  cultivation  of  land it  has decided to make a  scheme of consolidation for any estate or a group of   estates or a sub-division of an estate.  

(2)  Every such declaration shall be published in the  Official  Gazette  and  in  the  estate  or  estates   concerned in the prescribed manner.  

Section  15.  Effect  of  declaration  –  (1) On  the  publication  of  the  declaration  under section 14,  an  estate,  group  of  estates  or  a  sub-division  of  an  estate,  as the case may be, shall  be deemed to be   under consolidation operations from the date of such

publication  until  the  publication  of  the  notification   that the consolidation operations have been closed.  

(2) Where an estate, group of estates or a sub-section  of  an  estate  is  under  consolidation  operations,  the  duty  of  maintaining  the  maps,  field  book  and  preparing  an  annual  record  under  the  Himachal   Pradesh  Land  Revenue  Act,  1954  (6  of  1954),  as  applicable  to  the  areas  which  formed  part  of  the   Himachal Pradesh immediately before the 1st day of  November, 1966, and the Punjab Land Revenue Act,  1887 (17 of 1887) as applicable in the areas added  to Himachal Pradesh under section 5 of the Punjab   Re-organisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) and the rules   framed  thereunder,  shall  stand  transferred  to  the   Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and thereupon all   the powers conferred on the Collector and Assistant   Collector,  under  the  said  Acts  and  rules,  shall,  so  long as an estate, group of estates or a sub-division  of an estate remains under consolidation operations,   be exercised by the following officers:-  

1. The Director of Consolidation of Holdings.  2. Settlement Officer (Consolidation).  3. Consolidation Officer.  4. Assistant Consolidation Officer.  

(3) The State Government may by notification confer  on  any  officer  mentioned  in  sub-section  (2)  the  powers  of  Collector,  all  or  any of  the  powers  with   which an Assistant Collector, may be invested under  the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of   1954) or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of   1887) as the case may be.  

Section 16.  Cancellation of  declaration under  section 14 -  (1) The State Government may at any  time cancel the declaration made under section 14 in  respect of the whole or any part of the area specified   therein.

(2) Where a declaration has been cancelled in respect   of any area under sub-section (1),  such area shall,   with effect from the date of cancellation cease to be  under consolidation operations.   

Section 32. Right to possession of new holdings  .-  (1)  If all  the owners and tenants affected by the  scheme  of  consolidation  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  repartition,  as  finally confirmed agree  to  enter  into   possession  of  the  holdings  allotted  to  them  thereunder,  the  Consolidation  Officer  may  allow  them to enter into such possession forthwith or from  such date as may be specified by him.  

(2) If all the owners and tenants as aforesaid do not   agree to enter into possession under sub-section (1),   they shall  be entitled to possession of the holdings  and  tenancies  allotted  to  them  from  the  commencement of the agricultural year next following  the date of the publication of the scheme under sub- section (3) of section 29, or as the case may be, of the  preparation  of  the  new record-of-rights  under  sub- section (1) of section 31 and the Consolidation Officer   shall, if necessary, put them in physical possession  of the holding to which they are so entitled, and in  doing  so,  may  exercise  the  powers  of  a  Revenue  Officer under the Himachal  Pradesh Land Revenue  Act, 1954 (6 of 1954), or the Punjab Land Revenue  Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), as the case may be:

Provided  that  if  there  are  standing  crops  on  the  holdings,  physical  possession of  the  holdings shall   be delivered after the aforesaid standing crops have  been harvested.  (3) If  any  person  from  whom  compensation  is  recoverable under the scheme fails within 15 days of   the commencement of the agricultural  year referred  to in sub-section (2) to deposit such compensation in  the prescribed manner,  it  shall be recoverable from

him as an arrear of land revenue, and in such case   the  amount  realised  after  deducting  the  expenses  shall  be paid  to  any person having interest  in  the  holding.

Section 34. Coming into force of such scheme -   As  soon  as  the  persons  entitled  to  possession  of   holdings under this Act have entered into possession  of holdings respectively allotted to them, the scheme  shall be deemed to have come into force.  

Section 35. Rights after consolidation  - Subject  to  the  provisions  of  section  24  and  25,  and  with   effect  from the  date  on  which  a  tenure  holder,  in  pursuance of the provisions of section 32 enters into   possession of the plots allotted to him, his rights, title   and  interest  in  his  original  holdings  shall  be  extinguished and he shall have the same rights, title   and interest subject to modification, if any, specified  in the final consolidation scheme in the plots allotted   to him thereunder.

Rule  18.  Procedure  for  eviction  and  catering  into  possession -  The  Consolidation  Officer  shall   serve  a  notice  on  that  person  or  persons  liable  to   eviction under sub-section (2) of section 32 requiring  him within  15 days  of  the  receipt  of  the  notice  to   vacate the land. If such notice is not complied with   within  the  time  specified therein,  the  Consolidation   Officer may exercise the powers of a Revenue Officer  under  the  Himachal  Pradesh  Land  Revenue  Act,   1954 or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as the  case may be, for the purpose of putting in physical   possession  of  the  holdings  the  person  entitled   thereto.”

A reading of Section 14 of the Act extracted above would show  

that under the Section the State Government or its delegate

may make a declaration that in the interests of the general  

public and for the purposes of better cultivation of land, it has  

been  decided  to  make  a  consolidation  scheme.  Section  15  

states that on publication of such declaration under Section  

14,  the  concerned  area  shall  be  deemed  to  be  under  

consolidation operations until the publication of a notification  

that the consolidation operations have been closed.  

12. The first question which we are called upon to decide in  

this case is whether for any area where the consolidation  

operation  has  not  been  closed  by  publication  of  a  

notification  under  Section  15  of  the  Act,  the  State  

Government has the power under Section 16(1) of the Act  

to  cancel  the  declaration  made  under  Section  14  in  

respect of that area. The bare language of Section 16(1) of  

the Act is clear that the State Government has the power  

to  cancel  the  declaration  made  under  Section  14  in  

respect of any area “at any time”.  The expression “at any  

time”  in  Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  though    wide  is  

controlled by other provisions of the Act.  As observed by  

Lord  Watson  in  Administrator-General  of  Bengal v.

Premlal  Mullick [(1895)  ILR  22  Cal  788]  “…  it  is  

conceivable  that  the  Legislature  whilst  enacting  one  

clause  in  plain  terms,  might  introduce  into  the  same  

statute other enactments which to some extent qualify or  

neutralise  its  effect.”   (See  Principles  of  Statutory  

Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 12th Edition Pages  

36, 37).  The other provisions of the Act which we have to  

read to find the meaning of the expression “at any time”  

in Section 16(1) are Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the  

Act.  Section 32(1) of the Act quoted above provides that  

if all the owners and tenants affected by the scheme of  

consolidation  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  repartition,  as  

finally  confirmed agree  to  enter  into  possession  of  the  

holdings allotted to them thereunder, the Consolidation  

Officer  may  allow  them to  enter  into  such  possession  

forthwith or from such date as may be specified by him.  

Section 32 further  provides  that  if  all  the  owners  and  

tenants as aforesaid do not agree to enter into possession  

under Section 32(1), they shall be entitled to possession  

of the holdings and tenancies allotted to them from the

commencement of the agricultural year next following the  

date of the publication of the scheme under sub-section  

(3)  of  section  29,  or  as  the  case  may  be,  of  the  

preparation of the new record-of-rights under sub-section  

(1)  of  section 31 and the Consolidation Officer shall,  if  

necessary, put them in physical possession of the holding  

to  which  they  are  so  entitled,  and  in  doing  so,  may  

exercise  the  powers  of  a  Revenue  Officer  under  the  

Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 or the Punjab  

Land Revenue Act, 1887, as the case may be.  Section 35  

states that with effect from the date on which a tenure  

holder,  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  Section  32,  

enters into possession of  the plots  allotted to him, his  

rights, title and interest in his original holdings shall be  

extinguished and he shall have the same rights, title and  

interest subject to modification, if  any, specified in the  

final  consolidation scheme in the  plots  allotted  to him  

thereunder.  Section 34 of the Act quoted above states  

that  as  soon  as  the  persons  entitled  to  possession  of  

holdings under the Act have entered into possession of

holdings respectively allotted to them, the scheme shall  

be deemed to have come into force.  It is, thus, clear that  

it  is  only  when  the  persons  entitled  to  possession  of  

holdings under the Act have been delivered possession of  

the holdings that they acquire rights, title and interest in  

the new holding allotted to them and the consolidation  

scheme in the area is deemed to have come into force.  

Till  such  possession  of  the  allotted  land  under  the  

consolidation scheme is delivered to the allottees and the  

consolidation scheme is deemed to come into force, the  

State Government has the power under Section 16(1) of  

the Act to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1) of  

the Act.

13.  For this conclusion, we are supported by the decision of  

the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Chahat Khan  

Bahadur  Khan  and  others v.  The  State  of  Punjab  and  

others (supra) cited by Mr. Narasimha.  Section 36 of the  

East  Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of  

Fragmentation) Act, 1948 provided that a scheme for the  

consolidation of holdings confirmed under the Act may,

“at any time”, be varied or revoked by the authority which  

confirms it subject to any order of the State Government  

that may be made in relation thereto and a subsequent  

scheme  may  be  prepared,  published  and  confirmed in  

accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act.   The  Full  

Bench of  the  High  Court  held  that  though Section 36  

says that the power and jurisdiction conferred by it on  

the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) may be used and  

exercised “at any time”, the expression “at any time” will  

have limitations as spelled out from the context in which  

it is used.  The Full Bench after referring to the various  

provisions  of  the  1948  Act  held  that  the  Settlement  

Officer  (Consolidation)  had no jurisdiction to make the  

order varying or modifying the scheme of consolidation in  

the  village  after  the  consolidation  proceedings  were  

completed and came to an end on the coming into force  

of the scheme of consolidation of holdings and the taking  

of possessions of the lands allotted to the land-holders on  

or about February 16, 1959. (See AIR 1966 Punjab 111  

at Page 125 Para 17).

14. In  the  instant  case,  the  Additional  Director  

(Consolidation) by his order dated 15.07.1996 appears to  

have decided on the valuation of the land of the parties  

and the areas of land to be allotted to the appellant and  

to Damtal Mandir and the Consolidation Officer has also  

implemented the order of the Additional Director by his  

order  dated  28.12.1996  and  made  mutation  entries  

relating to the land, but no material has been produced  

before  the  Court  by  the  appellant  to  show  that  the  

possession of the land allotted to the appellant was given  

to  the  appellant  in  accordance  with  the  statutory  

provisions in Section 32 of the Act and Rule 18 of the  

Rules.   Since  the  appellant  had  not  entered  into  

possession of the holdings allotted to the appellant and  

Damtal Mandir has also not entered into possession of  

the  holdings  allotted  to  the  Mandir  pursuant  to  the  

orders passed by the Additional Director (Consolidation)  

and the Consolidation Officer and since the consolidation  

scheme had not come into force in the Revenue Estate  

Damtal,  the  State  Government  had  the  power  under

Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under  

Section 14(1) of the Act.         

16.     The next question which we have to decide in this case  

is  whether  the  State  Government  was  bound  to  follow  the  

principles  of  natural  justice  before  issuing  the  notification  

dated 27.09.1999 under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the  

declaration under Section 14(1)  of  the Act in respect of the  

Revenue Estate  Damtal.   Section 16(1)  of  the  Act  does  not  

state that a show cause notice is to be issued to any party or  

that any party has to be heard before a notification is issued  

thereunder.  Hence, the question which we have to consider is  

whether  principles  of  natural  justice  should  be  read  into  

Section 16(1) of the Act.  We have already held that the State  

Government can issue a notification under Section 16(1) of the  

Act cancelling the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in  

respect of any area at any time before the persons entitled to  

possession  of  holdings  under  the  Act  have  entered  into  

possession of the holdings allotted to them.  Since before the  

persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them,  

they do not acquire any right, title and interest in the holdings

allotted to  them and they  do not  lose  in  any manner  their  

rights, title and interest in their original holdings, their rights  

are not affected by the issuance of a notification under Section  

16(1) of the Act.   In other words, a notification under Section  

16(1) of the Act issued by the State Government before delivery  

of possession of the allotted holdings to persons has no civil  

consequences  and  therefore  the  State  Government  is  not  

required  to  follow  the  principles  of  natural  justice  before  

issuing such a notification.

17.    The last question which we have to consider is whether  

the State Government has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and  

in  a  malafide manner  in  cancelling  the  declaration  under  

Section 14 of the Act in respect of Revenue Estate Damtal by  

the notification dated 27.09.1999.  In the notification dated  

27.09.1999 itself, it is stated that the Governor of Himachal  

Pradesh  after  taking  into  consideration  various  

representations from public was of the opinion that it is not in  

the larger public interest to continue with the consolidation  

operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal Khas.   

18.  Before  the  High  Court,  a  report  of  the  Deputy  

Commissioner,  Kangra,  with  regard  to  the  consolidation  

operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal was produced.  In this  

report, the Deputy Commissioner has narrated various orders  

passed by the consolidation authorities in the Revenue Estate  

Damtal after the consolidation operations started in the village  

pursuant to the notification dated 19.11.1979.  Paras 15 and  

16 of report in which the Deputy Commissioner has described  

how the consolidation operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal  

has not been done in the interest of the general public  are  

extracted herein below:

“15.  Main  objective  of  taking  up  consolidation  operation in a revenue estate is the interest of the  general public for the purpose of better cultivation  of  land  as  is  provided  in  Section  14  of  the  H.P.  Holdings  (Consolidation  and  Prevention  Fragmentation) Act, 1971.  The record prepared as a  result of consolidation operation in revenue estate  Damtal  reveals  a  startling  outcome  of  the  consolidation operation in the said revenue estate.  The holding of all  the land owners in the revenue  estate  except  that  of  Damtal  Temple  and  Shri  Harbhajan Singh have remained unaffected by the  consolidatin operation.  The land which the others  held before consolidation operation was allotted to  them in the consolidation operation which means  there  was no change of  possession etc.  qua their  land.   It  was  only  the  land  belonging  to  Damtal  Temple  and the  one  belonging  to  Shri  Harbhajan

Singh that too of uncultivated classification (which  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  interests  of  general  public)  that  possession thereof  was ordered to  be  disturbed at various levels of this operation.  Thus  the result of  the consolidation operation (which is  still continuing) in the said revenue estate is that a  big chunk of land 52-95-87 hectares belonging to  the Damtal  Temple has been ordered to be taken  away and given to Shri Harbhajan Singh.  As has  been  explained  above,  there  is  a  long  chain  of  litigation  which  is  still  going  on  as  a  civil  writ  petition is still  pending in the Hon’ble High Court  about  the  consolidation  operation  in  which  inclusion and exclusion of land belonging to Damtal  Temple and Shri Harbhajan Singh has been ordered  by  all  consolidation  authorities  has  been  challenged.  Now District Administration is facing a  public  furor  and  criticism  about  the  actions  of  consolidation  authorities.   Besides  this,  law  and  order  problem  is  also  taking  place.   The  Damtal  Temple has been deprived of  a very big  chunk of  land on which perennial stock of sand and bajri is  available which can be a source of income for this  religious endowment.  By an estimate lacs of rupees  can be fetched annually as royalty alone by allowing  extraction of stones and bajri from the said land of  the temple.

16. From the above discussion it is manifestly clear  that no useful purpose has been served as a result  of taking up consolidation operation in the revenue  estate  Damtal  and,  therefore,  it  is  recommended  that declaration made under Section 14 regarding  taking  up  consolidation  operation  in  the  said  revenue  estate  may  kindly  be  cancelled  under  Section 16 of the Act ibid so as to restore normally  in the said area.  If the declaration is so cancelled it  will not affect right of any individual adversely as it  will  restore the pre-consolidation position qua the  land belonging to each land owner in the revenue

estate.   Moreover,  it  will  end  the  unnecessary  litigation among the parties.”

Thus,  the  Deputy  Commissioner  has  reported  to  the  State  

Government  that  during  the  consolidation  operation  in  the  

Revenue Estate Damtal the holding of all the land owners in  

the  revenue  estate  except  that  of  Damtal  Temple  and  the  

appellant  have  remained  unaffected  by  the  consolidation  

operation  and  the  land  which  others  held  before  the  

consolidation  operation  was  allotted  to  them  in  the  

consolidation operation and the only land which were sought  

to be exchanged in the consolidation operations were the land  

belonging to the Damtal Temple and the land belonging to the  

appellant  which  were  not  cultivatable  land  and  which  had  

nothing to do with the interests of general public.  The Deputy  

Commissioner has further reported that Damtal Temple was  

being deprived of a very big chunk of land on which perennial  

stock of sand and bajri is available which can be a source of  

income  for  this  religious  endowment.  The  Deputy  

Commissioner  has  concluded  in  his  report  that  no  useful  

purpose has been served by taking up consolidation operation

in  the  Revenue  Estate  Damtal  and  has  recommended  that  

declaration made under Section 14 of the Act for taking up  

consolidation operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal may be  

cancelled under Section 16 of the Act.  It appears that acting  

on this report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 04.01.1999  

the  State  Government  has  cancelled  the  declaration  under  

Section 14 of  the Act in relation to Revenue Estate  Damtal  

only by the notification dated 27.09.1999.

19.   Section  16(1)  of  the  Act  states  that  the  State  

Government  may  at  any  time  cancel  the  declaration  made  

under Section 14 in respect of any area and is silent as to the  

factors  which  the  State  must  take  into  consideration  for  

cancelling a declaration made under Section 14 of the Act in  

respect  of  any  area.  Section  14(1)  of  the  Act,  however,  

expressly  states  that  the  State  Government  while  making a  

declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act has to keep in mind  

the  interest  of  general  public  and  the  purposes  of  better  

cultivation  of  land.   Where  therefore  after  a  declaration  is  

made under Section 14(1)  of  the Act,  the State Government  

finds  that  interest  of  general  public  and purposes  of  better

cultivation  do  not  warrant  the  consolidation  operation  to  

continue  in  a  particular  area,  it  can cancel  the  declaration  

made under Section 14(1) of the Act by issuing a notification  

under Section 16(1)  of  the Act and such cancellation of the  

declaration will not be extraneous to the object of the Act.  In  

the present case, the report of the Deputy Commissioner was  

clear that interest of general public and better cultivation of  

land would not be achieved by continuing the consolidation  

operation.   The dominant  purpose  for  issuing a notification  

under Section 16(1) of the Act was, therefore, not extraneous  

but in accord with the objects of the Act.  The High Court was,  

thus, right in coming to the conclusion that the notification  

issued by the State Government under Section 16(1) of the Act  

in relation to Revenue Estate Damtal was legal and valid.

19.    In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal  

and we accordingly dismiss the same, but there shall be no  

order as to costs.

.……………………….J.                                                                (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                                (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi, November 23, 2010.