# CHET SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 369
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-03-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 1968
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, A. C. Gupta, P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chet-singh-v-state-of-punjab-ors-7236
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 136-Powers to be exercised when-whether
non-est orders can be ig11ored-East Puniab Holdings (Consolidation and Pre1-ention of Fragmentation) Act 1948-Section 42 .
A
B
Gurdev Singh had certain complaints about the Consolidation Scheme.
He
\Vas not present when his application was
being
considered. Therefore, the
application was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. Thereafter,
Gurdev Singh respondent No. 3 filed an application for restoration supported by
an affidavit attributing his absence to his
illness. The Additional Director
C
accepted the ground of resJ)ondent No. 3 about illness and granted
necessary
relief to him. The appellant filed a writ_petition in the High Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the assertion
of
rights by the appellant merely because of some report contained in the "Fard
Badar" could not take away the effect of the entries in the revenue records. The
High Court alsc held that no injustice was caused to the appellant and, therefore.
there was no ground for interference under Article 226.
D
Jn an appeal by Special Leave, the appellant contended that the Additional
Director had no power to review his previous order. The power to review CQn~
ferred by section 42 of the
Act has to be exercised only after hearing
the
interested parties. Since respondent No. 3 was not given an opportunity
of
being heard on account of his illness, it shows that the 9rder passed was non~est
and can be ignored at any stage. The court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that this was not a fit case for interference under Article 136.
rhe Court, how·
ever, observed that if the appellant has any right on account of long possession
or otherv.:ise he can assert them by adopting proper proceedings and that his
E
rights would not be affected by \vhatever is staled in the judgment of this ·court
as well as the High Court.

## Text

-
•
369
CHET SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
March 24, 1977
[M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Article 136-Powers to be exercised when-whether
non-est orders can be ig11ored-East Puniab Holdings (Consolidation and Pre1-ention of Fragmentation) Act 1948-Section 42 .
A
B
Gurdev Singh had certain complaints about the Consolidation Scheme.
He
\Vas not present when his application was
being
considered. Therefore, the
application was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. Thereafter,
Gurdev Singh respondent No. 3 filed an application for restoration supported by
an affidavit attributing his absence to his
illness. The Additional Director
C
accepted the ground of resJ)ondent No. 3 about illness and granted
necessary
relief to him. The appellant filed a writ_petition in the High Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the assertion
of
rights by the appellant merely because of some report contained in the "Fard
Badar" could not take away the effect of the entries in the revenue records. The
High Court alsc held that no injustice was caused to the appellant and, therefore.
there was no ground for interference under Article 226.
D
Jn an appeal by Special Leave, the appellant contended that the Additional
Director had no power to review his previous order. The power to review CQn~
ferred by section 42 of the
Act has to be exercised only after hearing
the
interested parties. Since respondent No. 3 was not given an opportunity
of
being heard on account of his illness, it shows that the 9rder passed was non~est
and can be ignored at any stage. The court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that this was not a fit case for interference under Article 136.
rhe Court, how·
ever, observed that if the appellant has any right on account of long possession
or otherv.:ise he can assert them by adopting proper proceedings and that his
E
rights would not be affected by \vhatever is staled in the judgment of this ·court
as well as the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2150 of
1968.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated.
5.9. J 968 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 458/68).
F
V. C. Malwjan, Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi, for the appellant.
0. P. Sharma, for the respondents 1 and 2.
K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri, for respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, C.J.
This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is
directed against a very detailed Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana
G
High Court on a Writ Petition No. 1875 of 1965 filed under Articles
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,
H
and the application for restoration dated 15 May, 1965, filed by
Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 3, shows : Gurdev Singh, wl10
had
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
37 0
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
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 ~ection
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, alter 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 tha·t 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 also,
there was no
ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case
of Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh & Ors. reported in 1966 (I)
S.C.R. 817, where thiB Court held that the Addi. Director exercising the
powers of the State Government has no jurisdiction under
section
42 of the Act to review his previous order.
Section 42 of the Act runs as follows :
"The State Government may at any time for the purpose
of satisfying i\self as to the legality or propriety of any order
passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartltlon made
by any officer under this 'Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such
officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it
thinks fit :
Provided that no order or scheme or repartition shall
be varied or reserved without giving the parties interested
notice to appear and opportunity to be beard excep! in case
where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings
have been vitiated by unlawful consideration."
The proviso to Section 42 lays down that notice to interested parties
to appear and opportunity to ~e beard are conditions precedent . to
passing of an order under Section 42.
The fact that the. Additional
Director was satisfied that the respondent, Gurdev Smgh, did not have
an opportunity of being h~ard due to his illness, s:ems ~o us to amount
to a finding that the proviso could not be complied with so that the
previous order could not be held to 1Je au order duly passed under
Section 42 of the Act. It could be ignored as "non est." The view
taken in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) would not apply to the
'
,j
'
CHET SINGH v. PUNJAB (Beg, C.J.)
3 71
instant case although Section 42 of the Act does not contain a power
A
of review.
Orders which are 'non est' can be ignored at any stage.
On the facts and circumstances of this case, we think that this is
not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The appellant, if he has acquired any rights by reason of long possession, can assert them whenever any proceedings are taken before a
competent authority to dispossess him.
What we have held here or
whatever has been held by the High Court will not affect such other
rights, if any, as the Appellant may have acquired by reason of possession.
We do not know and refrain from deciding who is actually in
possession and for how long and ,in what capacity.
This appeal is
dismissed.
Parties will bear their own costs.
P.H.P.
Appeal dismissed.
l
0
B
c