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

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

p. 1031 Copy page pinpoint

(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 appreciation of all the documents and appreciation of all the documents and B 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 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 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 (D) Because t11e order passed by t11e Settlement Officer Consolidation is G the Settlement Officer Consolidation final and binding between the parties. ~ is final and binding between the 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 of the Settlement Officer Consoli- jurisdiction in vertually axing the dation, which was passed after order of the Settlement Officer appreciation of all t11e facts. Consolidation, which was passed after appreciation of all the facts. (F) Because as a result of the order of the Dy. Director of Consolid- B (F) Because as a result of t11e ation the tubewell of the petitioner order of the Dy. Director of rendered useless. Consolidation the tubewell of the petitioner rendered useless. (G} Because the area left along side the tubewell is not capable of (G) Because the area left along being cultivated . C side the tubewell is not capable of being cultivated . (H) Because the respondents No. 3 to 6 already had lands in plot No. (H) Because the respondents 39, there was no justification in No. 3 to 6 already had lands in plot allotting them more areas in plot No D No. 39, t11ere was no justification in 39. allotting them more areas in plot No

39. (I) Because as a result of pro- ceedings under the said C.H. Act, the (I) Because as a result of pro- areas oflands belonging to the present ceedings under the said C.H.Act, petitioners have been unconsolida- E the areas of lands belonging to the ted and scattered, and the very spirit present petitioners have been unco- for initiating tllc consolidation of nsolidated and scattered, and the very holdings proceedings have been spirit for initiating the consolidation thrown to winds. The present of holdings proceedings have been petitioner has been allocated chaks by thrown to winds. The present the Dy. Director of Consolidation atfar petitioner has been allocated chaks away from t11e other chaks.e.q. the chak by the Dy. Director of Consolidation No. 98 is far away from the abadi of the at far away from the other chaks. e.q. petitioner, not only this, it has no the chak No. 98 is far away from the source of irrigation, besides tlle land abadi of the petitioner, not only this, thereof, is of inferior quality, and the it has no source of irrigation, besides Dy. Director of Consolidation has the land thereof, is of inferior quality, not adverted himself to this glaring and the Dy. Director of Consolidation fact. has not adverted himself to this glaring fact. (J) Because the orderoftlle Dy. Director of Consolidation is sheer H (J) Because the orderof the Dy. abuse of the process of tlle Court.

p. 1033 Copy page pinpoint

Director of Consolidation is sheer (K) Because the impugned order abuse of the process of the Court. of the High Court as well as that of the Dy. director of Consolidation have (K) Because the impugned occasioned failure of justice. order of the High Court as well as that of the Dy. director of (K) Because the High Court has Consolidation have justice. not given a serious thought to the legality of the order of the Dy. (K) Because the High Court Director of Consolidation dated has not given a serious thought to 30.. 8.19%. the legality of the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated (L) Because the order of the 30..8.19%. High Court as well as the Dy. Director C of Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 are (L) Because the order of the liable to be set aside. High Court as well as the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 re- 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.