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
ORDER
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
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.
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)