CHET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution is directed against a very detailed judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on a Writ Petition No. 1875 of 1965 filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, assailing an order of the Additional Director. Consolidation of Holdings, passed on 8 June, 1965. A perusal of that order, together with the earlier order of 4 May, 1965, and the application for restoration dated 15 May, 1965, filed by Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 3, shows:Gurdev Singh, who had some complaint against the Consolidation Scheme, was not present so that his petition was ordered to be filed by the Additional Director. Consolidation on 4 May, 1965. Gurdev Singh, soon thereafter, i. e. on 15 May, 1965, filed an application for restoration supported by an affidavit, attributing his absence on 4 May, 1965, to his illness. The order dated 8 June, 1965, of the Additional Director, shows that the applicant Gurdev Singh's assertion that he could not attend due to illness, over which he had no control, was accepted by the Additional Director, who proceeded to exercise his powers under S. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and to set right the grievance of the applicant, Gurdev Singh, after going into all the relevant records. The learned Judge of the High Court, who heard the petition also went through the records very carefully, came to the conclusion that an assertion of rights by the petitioner/appellant, a member of the Sanjam Group, merely because of some report contained in the "Fard Badar". could not take away the effect of entries in the revenue records. The learned Judge held that no injustice was caused to the petitioner/appellant, and, for this reason also, there was no ground for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Harbhaian Singh v. Karam Singh reported in (1966) 1 SCR 817 where this Court held that the Addl. Director exercising the powers of the State Government has no jurisdiction under S. 42 of the Act to review his previous order.

(3.) Section 42 of the Act runs as follows: