9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the provisions of the Act, a scheme for consolidation of holdings was published on 29th March, 1956. On 14th May, 1956 that scheme was confirmed under s. 20 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer accordingly re-allotted parcels of land to the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 8 in the village of Bholpur. Being dissatisfied with the allotment, respondents 1 and 8 preferred appeals under s. 21(3) of the Act but these appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer. Respondents 1 and 8 thereafter preferred further appeals under s. 21(4) of the Act to the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The Assistant Director partially allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 by his order dated 29th October, 1957 but dismissed the appeal of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The application was allowed by the High Court on 11 th January, 1960 on the ground that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was not competent to pass the order dated 29th August, 1958 in view of his previous order dated 3rd April, 1958 dismissing the application of Harbhajan Singh. The appellant took the matter in appeal under Letters Patent but the appeal was dismissed on 19th April, 1960. The question of law presented for determination in the appeal is, whether the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, had power to review his previous order dated 3rd April, 1958 dismissing Harbhajan Singh's application, and whether his subsequent order made under s. 42 of the Act dated 29th August, 1958 is legally valid ? S. 42 of the Act state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hession v. Jones([1914] 2 K.B. 421.) Bankes, J. pointed out that the court, under the statute, has no power 'to review an order deliberately made after argument and to entertain a fresh argument upon it with a view to ultimately confirming, or reversing it and observed Then as to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Before the Judicature Acts the Courts of common law bad no jurisdiction whatever to set aside an order which had been made. The Court of Chancery did exercise a certain limited power in this direction. All Courts would have power to make a necessary correction if the order as drawn up did not express the intention of the Court; the Court of Chancery however went somewhat further than that, and would in a proper case rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed on the ground that the auction purchaser had not been made a defendant. A Second Appeal was preferred by the other co-sharers in the mahal, and in this appeal the Commissioner, on March 23, 1900, made an order annulling the sale on the ground of an irregularity in the sale notice. This order related to the entire mahal. On June 21, 1900, the Commissioner having come to the conclusion that his order of March 23, 1900, was wrong in law, reviewed it, and made an order upholding the sale. The respondent thereupon brought the suit giving rise to the appeal to the Judicial Committee praying for a declaration that the order of June-. 21, 1900, was ultra vires and illegal. The Additional Subordinate Judge declared that the order setting asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i's order dated December 25, 1957. On or about August 14, 1958, the Collector called for the records from the MahaLkari, but the records did not reach the office of the Collector until December 24, 1958. On or-about October 3, 1958 the Collector rejected these revision applications. On October 6, 1958 the appellant again applied to the Collector for revision of the Mahalkari's order, but this application also was disposed of by the Collector on October 17, 1958. On November 7, 1958, the local Congress Mandal Samiti passed a resolution requesting the Collector to reconsider his previous orders. A copy of this resolution was sent to the Collector on November 10, 1958. On November 14, 1958, the appellant again applied to the Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er his previous decisions dated October 3, October 4 and October 17, 1958 and the subsequent order of the Collector dated February 17, 1959 re-opening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The majority judgment of this Court states : Though s. 76A, unlike s. 76, does not provide for an application for revision by the aggrieved party, the appellant properly drew the attention of the Collector to his grievances and asked him to exercise his revisional powers under s. 76A. Having perused the applications for revision filed by the appellant, the Collector decided to exercise his suo motu powers and called for the record on August 14, 1958 within one year of the order of the Mahalkari. But before the record arrived an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
