# CHHIDDA SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1030
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-02-19
- **Case number:** Review Petition No. 315 of 1998
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, K.Venkataswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chhidda-singh-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-and-ors-16037
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 137
Supreme Court Rules, I 966 : Order XL.
Review-Filing of review petition in casual and irresponsible mannerDepreciation of-Dismissal of special leave petition- No existence of error,
much less error apparent on the face of record-Review petition filed
reproducing verbatim paragraphs from special leave petition-Held filing of
D such a review is abuse of the process of this Court-Review petition dismissed
with costs.
E

## Text

A
B
c
CHHIDDA SINGH
v.
DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 19, 1998
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 137
Supreme Court Rules, I 966 : Order XL.
Review-Filing of review petition in casual and irresponsible mannerDepreciation of-Dismissal of special leave petition- No existence of error,
much less error apparent on the face of record-Review petition filed
reproducing verbatim paragraphs from special leave petition-Held filing of
D such a review is abuse of the process of this Court-Review petition dismissed
with costs.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 315 of
1998.
IN
Special leave Petition (C) No. 6347 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.96 of the Allahabad High Court
in W.P. No. 29979of1996.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Application for personal hearing is rejected.
We have perused the review petition and the connected record. The
G 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
H "K". The following tabular statement demonstrates what we have said above:
.
1030
CHHIDDA SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
1031
'·
(A) Because the High Court and
(A) Because the High Court and A
the Dy. Director of the Consolidation
the Dy. Director of the Consolidation
lost sight of the glaring position of law
lost sight of t11e glaring position of law
thatthe order passed by the Settlement
t11at the order passed by the Settlement
Officer Consolidation on 2.12.1995,
Officer Consolidation on 2.12.1995,
after making spot inspection and
after making spot inspection and B
appreciation of all the documents and
appreciation of all the documents and
circumstances and facts of t11e case
circumstances and facts of the case
attained fmality under Sec. 21 (2) of the
attained finality under Sec. 21 (2) of the
C.H. Act. the said Settlement Officer
C.H. Act. tl1e said Settlement Officer
Consolidation was the Court of first
Consolidation was the Court of first
appeal and as such its decision was
appeal and as such its decision was c
final in so far as tl1e facts of tl1e case
final in so far as the facts of the case
were concerned.
were concerned.
(B) Because the High Court and
(B) Because tl1e High Court and
Dy. DirectorofConsolidationfailed to
Dy. Director Consolidation failed to
appreciate that the powers of the
appreciate that the powers of the D
revisional court under Sec. 48 of the
revisional court under Sec. 48 of the
C.H. Act are very limited restricted and
C.H. Act are very limited restricted and
are not the unfettered power to upset
are not t11e unfettered powers to upset
the orders of the Settlement Officer of
t11e orders oft11e Settlement Officeron
the Settlement Officer on the
the question of fact, which order has E
questions of fact, which order has
attained finality.
attained finality.
(C) Because tl1e Dy. Director of
(C) Because the Dy. Director of
Consolidation has erred gravely in not
Consolidation has erred gravely in not
keeping in mind tile provision of Sec.
keeping in mind tile provision of Sec.
19 (f) oftl1e U.P.C.H. Act which makes F
"
19 (f) oftl1e U.P.C.H. Act which makes
it necessary for tile allotment of the
it necessary for tile allotment of the
same chak to tile tenureholder wherein
same chak to the tenureholder wherein
his own source ofinigation is installed.
'
Iris own source ofinigation is installed.
(D) Because tl1e order passed by
G
(D) Because t11e order passed by
t11e Settlement Officer Consolidation is
~
the Settlement Officer Consolidation
is final and binding between the
final and binding between the parties.
parties.
(E) Because the Dy. Director of
Consolidation has acted without
(E) Because the Dy. Directorof
jurisdiction in vertually axing the order H
1032
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998) 1 S.(f'..R.
A Consolidation has acted without
jurisdiction in vertually axing the
order of the Settlement Officer
Consolidation, which was passed after
appreciation of all the facts.
B
(F) Because as a result of t11e
order of the Dy. Director of
Consolidation the tubewell of the
petitioner rendered useless.
(G) Because the area left along
C side the tubewell is not capable of
being cultivated .
(H) Because the respondents
No. 3 to 6 already had lands in plot
D No. 39, t11ere 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,
E 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
F petitioner has been allocated chaks
by the Dy. 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,
G it has no source of irrigation, besides
the land thereof, is of inferior quality,
and the Dy. Director of Consolidation
has not adverted himself to this
glaring fact.
H
(J) Because the orderof the Dy.
of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was passed after
appreciation of all t11e facts.
(F) Because as a result of the
order of the Dy. 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 oflands belonging to the present
petitioners have been unconsolidated and scattered, and the very spirit
for initiating tllc consolidation of
holdings proceedings have been
thrown to winds. The present
petitioner has been allocated chaks by
the Dy. Director of Consolidation atfar
away from t11e 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 tlle land
thereof, is of inferior quality, and the
Dy. Director of Consolidation has
not adverted himself to this glaring
fact.
(J) Because the orderoftlle Dy.
Director of Consolidation is sheer
abuse of the process of tlle Court.
CHHIDDASJNGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
1033
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 Dy. director of
Consolidation have justice.
(K) Because the High Court
has not given a serious thought to
the legality of the order of the Dy.
Director of Consolidation dated
30 .. 8.19%.
(L) Because the order of the
High Court as well as the Dy. Director
of Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 reliable to be set aside.
(K) Because the impugned order A
of the High Court as well as that of the
Dy. director of Consolidation have
occasioned failure of justice.
(K) Because the High Court has
not given a serious thought to the B
legality of the order of the Dy.
Director of Consolidation dated
30 .. 8.19%.
(L) Because the order of the
High Court as well as the Dy. Director C
of Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 are
liable to be set aside.
D
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 E
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:
F
T.N.A.
Petition dismissed.