9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. 2. Legality and propriety of orders passed by officers under delegated powers. 3. Impact on fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. 4. Finality and revisional powers of the State Government under Section 42. 5. Maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948: The primary issue in this case is whether the State Government has the jurisdiction under Section 42 to interfere with an order passed by an officer exercising delegated powers under Section 41(1). The petitioner argued that Section 42 does not authorize the Government to interfere with an order made by itself or by an officer exercising powers delegated by the Government. The court held that Section 42 makes a distinction between the Government and an officer, and it does not authorize the Government to interfere with an order made by itself. The court reasoned that when an officer exercises delegated powers, the order is considered an order of the Government, and hence, it cannot be interfered with under Section 42. 2. Legality and propriety of orders passed by officers under delegated powers: The court examined whether an order passed by an officer under delegated powers is considered an order of the Government or the officer. It concluded that when the Government delegates its power to an officer, the order made by the officer is an order of the Government. The court emphasized that the power exercised by the delegate remains the power of the Government, and the officer acts as an agent of the Government. Therefore, an order passed by an officer under delegated powers is not subject to interference under Section 42. 3. Impact on fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India: The petitioner contended that the impugned order deprived him of his fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The court noted that the scheme under the Act aimed to redistribute lands on a more utilitarian basis, and the petitioner's original right to his lands would disappear upon the delivery of possession of the new allotments. The court held that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would inevitably affect the petitioner's right to property, thereby impacting his fundamental rights. Therefore, the petition under Article 32 was maintainable. 4. Finality and revisional powers of the State Government under Section 42: The court analyzed the finality and revisional powers of the State Government under Section 42. It observed that Section 42 provides an overall control to the State Government to ensure the legality and propriety of orders passed by its officers. However, the court emphasized that this power does not extend to orders made by officers exercising delegated powers, as such orders are considered orders of the Government. The court rejected the interpretation that would allow repeated interference under Section 42, leading to an endless process of revision. 5. Maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India: The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable under Article 32 as the impugned order did not affect the petitioner's right to property. The court disagreed, stating that the threat to the petitioner's property rights was sufficiently serious and inevitable. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to seek relief under Article 32 to prevent the illegal deprivation of his property rights. Conclusion: The court concluded that the impugned order made under Section 42 was entirely without jurisdiction and must be treated as a nullity. The petitioner was entitled to an order quashing the impugned order. The petition was allowed with costs, and the order purported to be made by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, was quashed.
|
