DAN SINGH BIST Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has the High Court the power to recall and correct an invalid or manifestly erroneous order passed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the problem which these four applications raise, a problem which I confess is not capable of an easy solution inasmuch as it is not covered by authority.

(2.) The circumstances which have led to these applications fire briefly these. One Thakur Dan Singh Bist held zamindari rights in two villages in district Bijnor. The State Government acquired his rights under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but by certain orders of 1952 and 1955 released cultivatory rights in his favour in respect of a certain area in the two villages, & he utilised this area as a modern farm. Subsequently the State Government decided to evict him from the land and to recover damages for its use and occupation. Accordingly proceedings, were started against him under the U.P. Government Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (U.P. Act No. XXIX of 1953), and on their completion the Additional Collector of Bijnor passed four orders dated 14-5-1957 directing his eviction from the area in question and further directing the payment of certain amounts as damages. He lodged appeals against the four orders, but they were dismissed by ihe District Judge. Thereupon he filed four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State Government and the officials concerned praying that the aforesaid four orders of the Additional Collector and the appellate orders of the District Judge be quashed and State authorities prevented from interfering with his possession of the disputed area and from recovering damages from him, and his main contention was that the Act in question was unconstitutional inasmuch as it contravened Article 14 of the Constitution. After this constitutional point had been argued before me for some time I suo motu posed a question which did not arise from the pleadings, namely, whether or not the Additional Collector was the "competent authority" under Act No. XXIX of 19531 read with the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act (U.P. Act No. XXXIX of 1952), and in consequence had jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. Since the question was one for which learned counsel for the parties were not prepared, their request for one day's adjournment in order to search for the relevant Government Notifications was acceded to. The following day when the case was taken up the learned counsel for Thakur Dan Singh referred me to. Notification No. 5069(ii) I.C.-151-52 dated 23-8-1956, which declared the Collector of Bijnor as the "competent Authority" for the district of Bijnor. The learned counsel for the State did not produce any other Notification; instead he accepted the finality of the Notification of 23-8-1956 and argued that under the terms of the U.P. Land Revenue Act the Additional Collector enjoyed the same powers as the Collector and was therefore entitled to act as the "competent authority". Pronouncing judgment on 28-8-1958 I overruled this contention, and holding that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the orders that he did, quashed them.

(3.) But the fact of the matter is that subsequent to the Notification mentioned above the State Government had issued a fresh Notification No. 5948/ I-C-353-C-56 dated 24-9-1956, authorising the Additional Collector of Bijnor to perform the functions of the competent authority in that district, a Notification of which learned counsel for the parties had no knowledge at the time they argued the case before me. On its discovery Mr. K.B. Asthana, Junior Standing Counsel, on behalf of the State Government filed the present four applications, which purport to be under Order XLVII and Section 151 C.P.C. and his prayer is that after taking into consideration the Notification of 24-9-1956 I should review my judgment dated 28-8-1958, set it aside, and re-open the writ proceedings.