Case Note & Summary
The case concerned the consolidation of land holdings in village Bholpur, District Ludhiana, under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 8 were allottees of parcels of land. In 1955 consolidation proceedings were initiated; a scheme for consolidation of holdings was published on 29 March 1956 and confirmed on 14 May 1956 under Section 20 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer re-allotted parcels of land to the parties. Respondents 1 and 8, dissatisfied with the allotment, preferred appeals under Section 21(3) of the Act before the Settlement Officer, which were dismissed. They then preferred further appeals under Section 21(4) to the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The Assistant Director partially allowed respondent No. 1's appeal by order dated 29 October 1957 and dismissed respondent No. 8's appeal. On 10 February 1958, the appellant moved the State Government under Section 42 of the Act for revision of the Assistant Director's order. He filed two copies of the application. On one copy, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings passed an order on 17 February 1958 directing that the application be put up with previous papers. On the second copy, the Director passed an order on 3 April 1958 stating that the Assistant Director's order need not be amended and directing the file to be informed. Subsequently, on the first copy, after hearing the parties, the Director passed an order on 29 August 1958 allowing the revision and setting aside the Assistant Director's order, holding that the original order was contrary to the scheme and based on a mistake of fact. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of 29 August 1958 by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court, contending that the Director could not review his own previous order of 3 April 1958. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 11 January 1960, quashing the Director's order of 29 August 1958 on the ground that the Director was not competent to pass it in view of his earlier order dismissing the application. The appellant's Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 19 April 1960. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Director had the power to review his previous order dated 3 April 1958 and whether the subsequent order dated 29 August 1958 was legally valid. The Court examined Section 42 of the Act, which empowers the State Government to call for and examine records and pass such orders as it thinks fit, but noted that there is no provision in the Act granting express power of review to the State Government with regard to an order made under Section 42. The Court referred to English and Indian authorities, including Drew v. Willis, Hession v. Jones, Anantharaju Shetty v. Appu Hegada, and followed the decision in Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar, which held that no authority can review its own order unless the power is conferred by statute. The Court held that the Director's order dated 29 August 1958 was ultra vires and without jurisdiction, and the High Court was right in quashing it. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Power of Review - Finality of Orders - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Section 42 - The Director of Consolidation of Holdings passed an order dismissing a revision application under Section 42 on 3 April 1958, and later passed another order on 29 August 1958 allowing the same application. The Supreme Court held that the Act did not confer express power of review on the State Government or the Director, and therefore the second order was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The High Court's decision quashing the second order was upheld. Held that no authority can set aside an order which has been properly made unless the power is given by statute.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Director of Consolidation of Holdings had power to review his previous order dated 3 April 1958 dismissing the appellant's application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, and whether the subsequent order dated 29 August 1958 allowing the application was legally valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Director's order dated 29 August 1958 was ultra vires and without jurisdiction because the Act did not confer power of review. The High Court's order quashing the Director's order was upheld.
Law Points
- No power of review unless expressly conferred by statute
- an order made without jurisdiction is ultra vires
- a statutory authority cannot set aside its own order after it is properly made
- Section 42 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act
- 1948 does not confer review power
