PRITHI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under section 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated December 18, 1981 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala.

(2.) The petition has arisen from the facts that respondents 3 to 7 were allotted Shamlat land by the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur exercising the powers of Collector vide his orders dated September 27, 1975 and February 15, 1976. The petitioners preferred an appeal under the provisions of section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974 (in short "the Act"), before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who had been authorised by the State Government to hear such appeals by a Notification dated September 17, 1975. Vide his order dated February 28, 1977 at Annexure PA, the Divisional Commissioner accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of allotment. Respondents 3 to 7, however, agitated the matter before the High Court where an order was made on July 29, 1977 quashing the order at Annexure PA on the sole ground that respondents 3 to 7 had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard. The respondents No. 3 to 7 were then arrayed as parties before the Divisional Commissioner, who by this order dated October 31, 1977 at Annexure PB once again cancelled the allotment made by the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur. Respondents 3 to 7 still had the grievance that they had not been properly heard. Another opportunity was, therefore, given to them to be heard and the Divisional Commissioner made another order dated August 27, 1979 at Annexure PC cancelling the allotments. It appears that respondents 3 to 7 thereafter approached the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, who sent their application to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on the ground that he had no powers under the Act to revise/review the impugned orders of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and that it was the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who could review his order if he so desired. The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra by his order dated December 18, 1981 at Annexure PD reviewed his earlier orders and held that the allotments made by the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur were in order. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of review, the present petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) This petition will have to be accepted on the short ground that the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had no power whatsoever to recall an order made by him on merits and re -decide the same. The Act as well as the 1975 Scheme framed thereunder confers no powers of review on the Divisional Commissioner specifically and such powers cannot be inferred by necessary implication. It is well -settled law that the power of review is not an inherent power. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1273, it was noticed that Saurashtra Land Reforms Act (25 of 1951) contained no provision from which the powers of the State Government to review its own order could be gathered. It was then held that the Commissioners functioning as delegates of the functions of the State Government could not review their orders. Reference in this connection may also be had to the law laid down by this Court in Rattan Dev Singh v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings and others, ILR 1982 HP 755. Thus, the proposition of law that the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had no power to review his earlier orders cannot be disputed. Merely because respondents 3 to 7 had approached the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh who had forwarded their application to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra for reviewing the earlier orders would not confer such a non -existent power on the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra.