Holding

The review petition was dismissed as an abuse of process because it reproduced the same grounds as the Special Leave Petition without showing any error in the original order.

Summary

The petitioner, Chhidda Singh, filed a review petition (No. 315 of 1998) after the Supreme Court dismissed his Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6347 of 1997, which challenged orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the High Court. The review petition merely reproduced verbatim the same grounds that had been raised in the Special Leave Petition, without identifying any new error or mistake in the earlier judgment. The Court observed that such a filing was casual, irresponsible, and amounted to an abuse of the Court's process, noting that no error apparent on the face of the record was alleged or demonstrated. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, deeming it an improper use of the review jurisdiction, and ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 5,000. The decision reaffirmed the limited scope of review under Article 137 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, emphasizing that review cannot be used to re‑argue matters already decided without showing a clear error.

Issues considered

Whether a review petition that merely repeats the grounds of a Special Leave Petition and fails to demonstrate any error in the original order can be entertained.
Whether filing such a review petition constitutes an abuse of the Court's process.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 137
Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order XL
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts. Sec. 19(f)

Subjects

review petitionabuse of processSpecial Leave PetitionSupreme Court of IndiaArticle 137Supreme Court RulesSection 21(2) C.H. ActSection 48 C.H. ActSection 19(f) U.P. C.H. Actcosts

Judgment

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

FEBRUARY 19, 1998

B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 137

Supreme Court Rules, I 966 : Order XL.
c
Review-Filing of review petition in casual and irresponsible manner-
Depreciation 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.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 315 of
1998.
IN
E
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
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 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
questions of fact, which order has
E
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
F 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
G 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.
CHHIDDASJNGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 1033

Director of Consolidation is sheer (K) Because the impugned order A
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 B
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.