HARBHAJAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

              [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1037


                   HARBHAJAN SINGH                            A
                             v.
        STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 5767 of 2002)
                  NOVEMBER 23, 2010
                                                              B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

    Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy:

       Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and c
 Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 - ss. 14, 15, 16 and
 32 - Consolidation of holdings - Declaration for consolidation
 of land in Revenue Estate Damtal and other villages - Lands
 of appellant and public trust, in Revenue Estate Damtal
 valued and proposed for exchange - Notification by State 0
 Government u/s. 16(1) cancelling the declaration in relation
 to Revenue Estate Damtal before delivery of possession of
 allotted holdings to appellants and public trust - Legality of
- Held: Notification was legal and valid - State Government
 had the power uls. 16(1) to cancel the declaration since the E
 consolidation scheme did not come into force in the Revenue
 Estate Damtal - Appellant and public trust did not enter into
possession of the holdings allotted to them pursuant to the
 orders passed by the Consolidation Officer - State
 Government was not required to follow principles of natural F
justice before issuing such notification - More so,
consolidation operation in Revenue Estate Damtal was not
in the interest of the general public and better cultivation of
land - Thus, dominant purpose for issuing the notification was
 not extraneous but in accord with the objects of the Act- Order
passed by High Court upholding the notification is justified - G
Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention
of Fragmentation) Rules, 1973 - r. 18 - Principles of natural
justice.

                           1037                               H
    1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       Words and phrases:

         Expression 'at any time' - Connotation of in the context
    of s. 16(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation
    and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971.
B        On 03.10.1986, the Director, Land Consolidation
    Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a
    notice under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh
    Holdings      (Consolidation     and    Prevention     of
    Fragmentation) Act, 1971 that it had made a plan for land
C   consolidation of 14 villages including Revenue Estate
    Damtal Khas, in the interest of general public and better
    cultivation of agricultural land. The appellant and
    respondent No.2-Damtal Temple, owned land in Revenue
    Estate Damtal Khas. Their lands were valued. The land
D   of the appellant was exchanged with the land of the
    Damtal Temple. There was deficiency in the allotted area
    of the appellant. The excess of area allotted to
    respondent No.2 was excluded from the area of
    respondent No.2 and was included in the'holding of the
E   appellant to make his deficiency in the allotted area. On
    27 .09.1999, the State Government issued a notification
    under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act cancelling
    the declaration dated 03.10.1986 as regards the land
    related to Revenue Estate Damtal Khas. Thereafter, the
F   Revenue Estate Damtal Khas ceased to be under
    consolidation operation. Aggrieved, the appeilant
    challenged the notification. The Division Bench of the
    High Court dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the
    appellant filed the instant appeal.
G       Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       ,,__
      HELD: 1.1. The bare language of Section 16(1) of the
  Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and
  Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 is clear that the
H State Government has the power to cancel the
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                1039
              PRADESH & ORS.

declaration made under Section 14 in respect of any area         A
'at any time'. The expression 'at any time' in Section 16(1)
of the Act though wide is controlled by other provisions
of the Act. Section 32(1) of the Act provides that if all the
owners and tenants affected by the scheme of
consolidation or, as the case may be, repartition, as finally    B
confirmed agree to enter into possession of the holdings
allotted to them thereunder, the Consolidation Officer may
allow them to enter into such possession forthwith or
from such date as may be specified by him. Section 32
further provides that if all the owners and tenants do not       c
agree to enter into possession under Section 32(1), they
shall be entitled to possession of the holdings and
tenancies allotted to them from the commencement of the
agricultural year next following the date of the publication
of the scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 29, or as         0
the case may be, of the preparation of the new record-
of-rights under sub-section (1) of Section 31 and the
Consolidation Officer shall, if necessary, put them in
physical possession of the holding to which they are so
entitled, and in doing so, may exercise the powers of a
                                                                 E
Revenue Officer under the Himachal Pradesh Land
Revenue Act, 1954 or the Punjab Land Revenue Act,
1887, as the case may be. Section 35 states that with
effect from the date on which a tenure holder, in
pursuance of the provisions of Section 32, enters into
possession of the plots allotted to him, his rights, title and   F
interest in his original holdings shall be extinguished and
he shall have the same rights, title and interest subject
to modification, if any, specified in the final consolidation
scheme in the plots allotted to him thereunder. Section
34 of the Act states that as soon as the persons entitled        G
to possession of holdings under the Act have entered
into possession of holdings respectively allotted to them,
the scheme shall be deemed to have come into force. It
is, thus, clear that it is only when the persons entitled to
possession of holdings under the Act have been                   H
    1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A delivered possession of the holdings that they acquire
  rights, title and interest in the new holding allotted to
  them and the consolidation scheme in the area is deemed
  to have come into force. Till such possession of the
  allotted land under the consolidation scheme is delivered
B to the allottees and the consolidation scheme is deemed
  to come into force, the State Government has the power
  under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration
  under Section 14(1) of the Act. [Para 12] (1055-F-H; 1056-
  A-H; 1057-A]
c       Chahat Khan Bahadur Khan and others v. The State of
    Punjab and others AIR 1966 Punjab 111, approved.
         1.2. In the instant case, the Additional Director
    (Consolidation) by his order dated 15.07.1996 appears to
o   have decided on the valuation of the land of the parties
    and the areas of land to be allotted to the appellant and
    to Damtal Mandir, and the Consolidation Officer also
    implemented the order of the Additional Director by his
    order dated 28.12.1996 and made mutation entries
E   relating to the land, but no material was produced before
    the court by the appellant to show that the possession
    of the land allotted to the appellant was given to the
    appellant in accordance with the statutory provisions in
    Section 32 of the Act and Rule 18 of the Himachal
F   Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
    Fragmentation) Rules, 1973. Since the appellant did not
    enter into possession of the holdings allotted to the
    appellant and Damtal Mandir also did not enter into
    possession of the holdings allotted to the Mandir
    pursuant to the orders passed by the Additional Director
G   (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer and since
    the consolidation scheme did not come into force in the
    Revenue Estate Damtal, the State Government had the
    power under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the
    declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act. (Para 15] [1057-
H   H; 1058-A-CJ
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                1041
              PRADESH & ORS.

     1.3. Section 16(1) of the Act does not state that a        A
show cause notice is to be issued to any party or that any
party has to be heard before a notification is issued
thereunder. The State Government can issue a
notification under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the
declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in respect of        B
any area at any time before the persons entitled to
possession of holdings under the Act have entered into
possession of the holdings allotted to them. Since before
the persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted
to them, they do not acquire any right, title and interest      c
in the holdings allotted to them and they do not lose in
any manner their rights, title and interest in their original
holdings, their rights are not affected by the issuance of
a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act. A notification
under Section 16(1) of the Act issued by the State              0
Government before delivery of possession of the allotted
holdings to persons has no civil consequences and,
therefore, the State Government is not required to follow
the principles of natural justice before issuing such a
notification. [Para 16] [1058-E-H; 1059-A]
                                                                E
    1.4. In the report with regard to the consolidation
operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal, the Deputy
Commissioner, Kangra, described how the consolidation
operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal was not done in
the interest of the general public. The Deputy F
Commissioner reported to the State Government that
during the consolidation operation in the Revenue Estate
Damtal the holdings of all the land owners in the revenue
estate except that of Damtal Temple and the appellant
remained unaffected by the consolidation operation and G
the land which others held before the consolidation
operation was allotted to them in the consolidation
operation and the only lands which were sought to be
exchanged in the consolidation operations were the land
                                                                H
    1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 O] 1B (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A belonging to the Damtal Temple and the land belonging
  to the appellant which were not cultivatable land and
  which had nothing to do with the interests of general
  public. The Deputy Commissioner further reported that
  Damtal Temple was being deprived of a very big chunk
B of land on which perennial stock of sand and bajri is
  available which could be a source of income for the
  religious endowment. The Deputy Commissioner
  concluded in his report that no useful purpose was
  served by taking up consolidation operation in the
c Revenue Estate Damtal and recommended that
  declaration made under Section 14 of the Act for taking
  up consolidation operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal
  may be cancelled under Section 16 of the Act. It appears
  that acting on the report of the Deputy Commissioner
  dated 04.01.1999, the State Government cancelled the
0
  declaration under Section 14 in relation to Revenue
  Estate Damtal only by the notification dated 27.09.1999.
  [Para 18] [1059-E-F; 1061-C-H]

       1.5. Section 16(1) of the Act states that the State
E Government may at any time cancel the declaration made
  under Section 14 in respect of any area and is silent as
  to the factors which the State must take into
  consideration for cancelling a declaration made under
  Section 14 of the Act in respect of any area. Section 14(1)
F of the Act, however, expressly states that the State
  Government while making a declaration under Section
  14(1) of the Act has to keep in mind the interest of general
  public and the purposes of better cultivation of land.
  Where, therefore, after a declaration is made under
G Section 14(1) of the Act, the State Government finds that
  interest of general public and purposes of better
  cultivation do not warrant the consolidation operation to
  continue in a particular area, it can cancel the declaration
  made under Section 14(1) of the Act by issuing a
H
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                 1043
              PRADESH & ORS.

notification under Section 16(1) of the Act and such             A
cancellation of the declaration will not be extraneous to
the object of the Act. In the instant case, the report of the
Deputy Commissioner was clear that interest of general
public and better cultivation of land would not be
achieved by continuing the consolidation operation. The          s
dominant purpose for issuing a notification under Section
16(1) of the Act was, therefore, not extraneous but in
accord with the objects of the Act. The High Court was,
thus, right in coming to the conclusion that the
notification issued by the State Government under                c
Section 16(1) of the Act in relation to Revenue Estate
Damtal was legal and valid. [Para 19] [1062-A-F]

    Administrator-Genera/ of Bengal v. Prem/a/ Mullick
(1895) ILR 22 Cat 788; S. Pratap Singh v The State of
Punjab 1964 (4) SCR 733, referred to.                            D
    Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.
Singh, 12th Edn pp 36, 37 referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                 E
    1964 (4) SCR 733            Referred to.         Para 6
    (1895) ILR 22 Cal 788       Referred to          Para 13
    AIR 1966 Punjab 111         Approved.            Para 14
                                                                 F
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5767 of 2002.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 21.9.2001 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition No.
438 of 1999.                                                     G

   P.S. Narasimha, Vinay Kr. Garg, Surya Kant, Fazal
Ahmad, Namrata Singh, Poornima for the Appellant.

                                                                 H
    1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       S. Balakrishnan, Om Prakash Mishra, S.N. Jha, Ghan
    Shyam Vasisht, Naresh K. Sharma, Neeraj Malhotra, T.V.S.
    Raghavendra Sreyas, Nikhil Nayyarr for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B        A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the
    judgment and order dated 21.09.2001 of the Division Bench
    of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition
    No.438 of 1999 filed by the appellant (Harbhajan Singh).

c      2. The relevant facts very briefly are that on 03.10.1986,
  the Director of Land Consolidation Department, Government
  of Himachal Pradesh, issued a notice under Section 14 of the
  Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
  Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') declaring that in
0 the interest of general public and better cultivation of agricultural
  land, the Government has made a plan for land consolidation
  of 14 villages including Revenue Estate Damtal Khas. In
  Revenue Estate Damtal Khas, the appellant (Harbhajan Singh)
  and the respondent No.2 (Mandir Damtal) owned land. The land
E of the appellant was valued at 1 anna. The Appellant filed
  objections saying that his land was located on the road side
  and was of much higher value considering its commercial
  importance. The Consolidation Officer in his order dated
  15.12.1986 held the objection of the appellant to be correct and
  ordered the value of the land to be 16 annas. There was a
F proposal during the consolidation proceedings for exchanging
  the land of the appellant in khasra No.171/1 with the land of
  respondent No.2 in khasra No.171. The value of the land of
  respondent No.2 in khasra No.171 was proposed as 16 annas
  and the appellant objected to this valuation saying that the value
G of the land of respondent No.2 in khasra No.171 should be 1
  anna only. By order dated 01.04.1988, the Land Acquisition
  Officer held that the correction of valuation of the land of
  respondent No.2 in khasra No.171 was beyond his jurisdiction.
  The appellant filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer who
H
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                    1045
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

by order dated 19.05.1989 gave some additional land to the           A
appellant but did not change the valuation of the land of
respondent No.2 in khasra No.171 to 1 anna as claimed by the
appellant. The appellant then filed a revision before the Director
of Consolidation under Section 54 of the Act and the Additional
Director (Consolidation) by his order dated 15.07.1996 set           B
aside the order dated 19.05.1989 of the Settlement Officer and
held that it was not justified to give the same value to khasra
No.171 and khasra No.171/1. The Additional Director further
held that as a result of correction of the valuation of the land,
the net deficiency in allotment of area to the appellant comes       c
to 3-87-47 hectares standard area and the excess of area of
respondent No.2 comes to 3-51-81 hectares standard area
and, therefore, the excess area allotted to respondent No.2 is
to be excluded from the area of respondent No.2 and is to be
included in the holding of the appellant to make his deficiency      D
in the allotted area. This order of Additional Director
(Consolidation) was given effect to by the Consolidation Officer
in his order dated 28.12.1996.

     2. The order dated 15.07.1996 passed by the Additional
Director was challenged by the lessees of land of respondent         E
No.2 (for short 'the lessees') in a Writ Petition C.W.P. No.33
of 1997. The lessees withdrew C.W.P. No.33of1997 and filed
a fresh writ petition C.W.P. No.185 of 1997 challenging the
order dated 15.07.1996 of Additional Director. By order dated
26.05.1997, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed           F
C.W.P. No.185 of 1997. The lessees filed Review Petition
No.26 of 1997 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of
the High Court on 23.06.1997. The lessees filed Special Leave
Petitions (C) No.17105 and 17106 of 1997 before this Court
and by order dated 22.09.1997 this Court dismissed the               G
special leave petitions. On 27.09.1999, however, the State
Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification under
sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act cancelling the
declaration dated 03.10.1986 of the Director, Land
Consolidation Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh,            H
    1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A under Section 14 of the Act to the extent the declaration related
  to Revenue Estate Damtal Khas. As a consequence, Revenue
  Estate Damtal Khas ceased to be under consolidation
  operation with effect from 27.09.1999. Aggrieved, the appellant
  filed Civil Writ Petition No.438 of 1999 challenging the
B notification dated 27.09.1999 in the High Court of Himachal
  Pradesh and by the impugned judgment and order, the Division
  Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

          3. The contention of the appellant before the High Court
    was that the notification dated 27 .09.1999 issued under
C   Section 16(1) of the Act by the State Government cancelling
    the declaration under Section 14 of the Act was arbitrary,
    unreasonable and vitiated by ma/a fide inasmuch as it was
    issued after 13 years from the declaration under Section 14 of
    the Act in 1986 and after the consolidation proceedings were
D   finalized, completed and even implemented and the real object
    of the notification was to set at naught the orders passed by
    the Consolidation Authorities and the Court. The further
    contention of the appellant before the High Court was that before
    issuing the notification under Section 16(1) of the Act no
E   opportunity whatsoever was given to the appellant to press his
    case before the State Government and, therefore, the
    notification was issued in violation of the principles of natural
    justice. On behalf of the State Government, it was contented
    that no notification under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the
F   Act closing the consolidation operation in the Revenue Estate
    Damtal had been issued by the State Government and,
    therefore, it was open to the State Government to cancel the
    declaration under Section 16(1) of the Act and that the
    notification was issued in the larger public interest and that
G   principles of natural justice were not required to be followed by
    the State Government before issuing the notification. The
    contention of respondent No.2 before the High Court was that
    the valuation of khasra Nos.171 and 171/1 fixed by the
    Additional Director (Consolidation) had caused serious
H   prejudice to Mandir Damtal and had given undue benefits to
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                1047
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

the appellant inasmuch as valuation of the property of Mandir A
Damtal was reduced from 16 annas to 1 anna, whereas the
valuation of the property belonging to the appellant was
increased from 1 anna to 16 annas and all this was done in
connivance and collusion with the State Government Officers.
The High Court found that the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, B
had submitted a report dated 04.01.1999 to the Finance
Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue), Government of
Himachal Pradesh, in which the extent of cultivable land of
private land-owners in Revenue Estate Damtal was stated to
                                                               c
be negligible and it was also stated that the holdings of almost
all the land-owners in the Revenue Estate except that of Damtal
Temple (respondent No.2) and Harbhajan Singh (appellant)
remained unaffected by the consolidation operation inasmuch
as the land which the other land-owners held before the
consolidation operation was allotted to them in the D
consolidation operation also and it was only the land belonging
to Damtal Temple and the land belonging to Harbhajan Singh,
which were sought to be exchanged. In the report, the Deputy
Commisl?ioner therefore observed that no useful purpose has
been served by taking up the consolidation operation in the
Revenue Estate Damtal and recommended that the declaration E
made under Section 14 of the Act for taking up consolidation
operation in the Revenue Estate be cancelled under Section
16 of the Act with a view to restore normalcy in the area. The
High Court held that the notification under Section 16(1) of the
Act cancelling the declaration under Section 14 of the Act was F
issued by the State Government in larger public interest and
was also issued before the closure of the consolidation
operation under Section 15(1) of the Act and was not arbitrary
and unreasonable. The High Court further held that non-
issuance of the notification would have resulted in public G
mischief and extension of undue benefits to the appellant
causing loss and injury to the respondent No.2 which was public
trust. Thus, the High Court held that the notification dated
27.09.1999 issued under Section 16(1) of the Act was legal,
valid and in accordance with law.                                H
    1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       4. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel appearing
  for the appellant, submitted that the High Court was not right in
  coming to the conclusion that the power under Section 16(1)
  of the Act could be invoked by the State Government to cancel
  the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in respect of the
B Revenue Estate Damtal. He argued that though Section 16(1)
  of the Act empowers the State Government to cancel the
  declaration made under Section 14 of the Act in respect of any
  area "at any time", the State Government cannot exercise
  powers under Section 16(1) of the Act after the consolidation
c authorities had finalized the consolidation proceedings. He
  cited the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court
  in Chahat Khan Bahadur Khan and others v. The State of
  Punjab and others [AIR 1966 Punjab 111), in which the
  expression "at any time" in Section 36 of East Punjab
  (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948
0
  arose for interpretation before the High Court and the High
  Court held that this expression though wide has limitations as
  spelled out from the context in which it is used and would mean
  the time and duration of the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer
  (Consolidation). He submitted that in the present case after the
E order dated 15.07.1996 was passed by the Additional Director
  (Consolidation) making final allotment of the area to the
  appellant and after the Consolidation Officer by his order dated
  28.12.1996 gave effect to the order dated 15.07.1996 of the
  Additional Director (Consolidation), the jurisdiction of the
F consolidation authorities came to an end and therefore no
  notification could be issued under Section 16(1) of the Act by
  the State Government cancelling the declaration under Section
  14(1) of the Act.

G     5. Mr. Narasimha next submitted that the notification dated
  27.09.1999 issued by the State Government under Section
  16(1) of the Act is arbitrary and vitiated by legal ma/a tides
  inasmuch as it was issued by the State Government with an
  object to set at naught the orders passed by the consolidation
H authorities in favour of the appellant, which have been upheld
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                       1049
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

by the High Court and the Supreme Court in the writ petition            A
and the special leave petition. He submitted that the State
Government could have, in exercise of its revisional powers
under Section 54 of the Act, examined the legality and propriety
of the order dated 15.07 .1996 passed by the Additional
Director (Consolidation), but instead the State Government              B
exercised its powers under Section 16(1) of the Act and
cancelled the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in
relation to Revenue Estate Damtal Khas for extraneous
considerations. He cited the decision of this Court in S. Pratap
Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1964 (4) SCR 733] for the                c
proposition that when the dominant purpose of exercise of a
power is unlawful then the act itself is unlawful and it is not cured
by saying that there was some other purpose for exercise of.
the power, which was lawful. He argued that in the present case,
the dominant purpose of issuing the notification under Section          D
16(1) of the Act was to frustrate the order dated 15.07 .1996
passed by the Additional Director (Consolidation) in favour of
the appellant as confirmed by the orders passed by the High
Court and the Supreme Court in writ petition and special leave
petition and therefore the notification issued under Section
                                                                        E
16(1) of the Act is bad in law even if some other lawful purposes
ma'.· be the object of the notification.

     6. Mr. Narasimha finally submitted that the notification
dated 27.09.1999 of the State Government under Section 16(1)
of the Act was also violative of principles of natural justice as       F
a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner on the basis
of which the notification was issued was not supplied to the
appellant and no opportunity whatsoever was given to the
appellant before the notification was issued by the State
Government. According to Mr. Narasimha, the High Court                  G
should have quashed the notification dated 27.09.1999 issued
under Section 16(1) of the Act and allowed the writ petition of
the appellant.

     7. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for             H
    1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent no.1, submitted that
  Sections 2(7), 4, 14 and 32 of the Act would show that the Act
  applies to agricultural or cultivable land. He argued that the
  report of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra which was
  submitted to the Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary
B (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly indicated
  that the extent of cultivable land of the private land-owners in
  Revenue Estate Damtal was negligible and that the holdings
  of almost all the land-owners of the cultivable land in the
  Revenue Estate except that of Damtal Temple and the appellant
c remained unaffected by the consolidation operation and that the
  consolidation operation only was confined to exchange of land
  of Damtal Temple with the land of the appellant, which had stone
  quarries and which was not cultivable. On these facts, the State
  Government issued the notification dated 27.09.1999 under
  Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the declaration under
0
  Section 14(1) of the Act in the larger public interest because
  the object of the Act was not being achieved by the
  consolidation operations. Mr. Sharma submitted that this is not
  a case where the State Government has exercised its power
E under Section 16(1) of the Act for purposes extraneous to the
  object of the Act.

       8. Mr. Sharma next submitted that the expression "at any
  time" in Section 16(1) of the Act is very wide and the State
  Government can issue a notification under Section 16(1) of the
F Act at any time before the closure of the consolidation
  operations under Section 15(1) of the Act. He further submitted
  that there is nothing in Section 16 of the Act to indicate that
  the State Government has to comply with the principles of
  natural justice before issuing the notification under Section
G 16(1) of the Act.

          9. Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for
    respondent no.2, adopted the contentions of the learned
    counsel appearing for respondent no.1. He also submitted that
    until the year 1996, Damtal Temple was being managed by the
H
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAi...                  1051
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

Mahanto and because of collusion between the Mahanto of the           A
Temple and the appellant, the interest of the Temple was in
jeopardy during the consolidation proceedings. He further
submitted that in fact in the proceedings before the Additional
Director (Consolidation) relating to valuation and allotment of
the land to the different parties, Damtal Temple was not a party      B
and the order of the Additional Director (Consolidation) was
obtained by the appellant behind the back of the Damtal Temple
causing grave loss and injury to the Temple.

     10. Mr. S. Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel for
respondent no.4, submitted that although the mutation entry was       C
made in favour of the appellant on 19.01.1997 in respect of the
land of the Damtal Temple in khasra No. 171, possession in
respect of the land was not delivered to the appellant. He
referred to the provisions of Section 32 of the Act and Rule 18
of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and                   D
Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules')
to show the manner in which possession of a holding has to
be given to a person after allotment to him in the consolidation
proceedings. He submitted that Section 35 of the Act is very
clear that only after a person entitled to possession of the plot     E
allotted to him is given possession in pursuance of the
provisions of Section 32 that he acquires his rights, title and
interest in the plot allotted to him. He argued that in the present
case since the appellant has not been given possession of the
land in khasra No. 171 in accordance with Section 32 of the           F
Act and Rule 18 of the Rules, he had not acquired any right,
interest or title in the land in khasra No. 171, which remained
with the Damtal Temple.

     11. Sections 14, 15, 16, 32, 34 and 35 of the Act and Rule       G
18 of the Rules, which are relevant for deciding this case, are
extracted hereunder:

     "Section14.Declaration regarding consolidation - (1) The
     State Government may declare that in the interests of the
                                                                      H
    1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      general public and for the purposes of better cultivation of
       land it has decided to make a scheme of consolidation for
       any estate or a group of estates or a sub-division of an
       estate.

       (2) Every such declaration shall be published in the Official
B
       Gazette and in the estate or estates concerned in the
       prescribed manner.

       Section 15. Effect of declaratiJn - (1) On the publication
       of the declaration under section 14, an estate, group of
c      estates or a sub-division of an estate, as the case may
       be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations
       from the date of such publication until the publication of the
       notification that the consolidation operations have been
       closed.
D
       (2) Where an estate, group of estates or a sub-section of
       an estate is under consolidation operations, the duty of
       maintaining the maps, field book and preparing an annual
       record under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act,
       1954 (6of1954), as applicable to the areas which formed
E
       part of the Himachal Pradesh immediately before the 1st
       day of November, 1966, and the Punjab Land Revenue
       Act, 1887 (17 of 1887) as applicable in the areas added
       to Himachal Pradesh under section 5 of the Punjab Re-
       organisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) and the rules framed
F      thereunder, shall stand transferred to the Settlement Officer
       (Consolidation), and thereupon all the powers conferred on
       the Collector and Assistant Collector, under the said Acts
       and rules, shall, so long as an estate, group of estates or
       a sub-division of an estate remains under consolidation
G      operations, be exercised by the following officers:-

       1. The Director of Consolidation of Holdings.

       2. Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
H
HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                   1053
   PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

3. Consolidation Officer.                                       A

4. Assistant Consolidation Officer.

(3) The State Government may by notification confer on any
officer mentioned in sub-section (2) the powers of
Collector, all or any of the powers with which an Assistant     8 ·
Collector, may be invested under the Himachal Pradesh
Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of 1954) or the Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887) as the case may be.

Section 16. Cancellation of declaration under section 14        c
- (1) The State Government may at any time cancel the
declaration made under section 14 in respect of the whole
or any part of the area specified therein.

(2) Where a declaration has been cancelled in respect of
                                                                0
any area under sub-section (1 ), such area shall, with effect
from the date of cancellation cease to be under
consolidation operations.

Section 32. Right to possession of new holdings.- (1) If
all the owners and tenants affected by the scheme of            E
consolidation or, as the case may be, repartition, as finally
confirmed agree to enter into possession of the holdings
allotted to them thereunder, the Consolidation Officer may
allow them to enter into such possession forthwith or from
such date as may be specified by him.                           F

(2) If all the owners and tenants as aforesaid do not agree
to enter into possession under sub-section (1 ), they shall
be entitled to possession of the holdings and tenancies
allotted to them from the commencement of the agricultural      G
year next following the date of the publication of the
scheme under sub-section (3) of section 29, or as the case
may be, of the preparation of the new record-of-rights
under sub-section (1) of section 31 and the Consolidation
Officer shall, if necessary, put them in physical possession
of the holding to which they are so entitled, and in doing      H
    1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      so, may exercise the powers of a Revenue Officer under
       the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of
       1954), or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17of1887),
       as the case may be:

       Provided that if there are standing crops on the holdings,
B
       physical possession of the holdings shall be delivered after
       the aforesaid standing crops have been harvested.

       (3) If any person from whom compensation is recoverable
       under the scheme fails within 15 days of the
c      commencement of the agricultural year referred to in sub-
       section (2) to deposit such compensation in the
       prescribed manner, it shall be recoverable from him as an
       arrear of land revenue, and in such case the amount
       realised after deducting the expenses shall be paid to any
D      person having interest in the holding.

       Section 34. Coming into force of such scheme - As soon
       as the persons entitled to possession of holdings under
       this Act have entered into possession of holdings
       respectively allotted to them, the scheme shall be deemed
E
       to have come into force.

       Section 35. Rights after consolidation - Subject to the
       provisions of section 24 and 25, and with effect from the
       date on which a te'nure holder, in pursuance of the
F      provisions of section 32 enters into possession of the plots
       allotted to him, his rights, title and interest in his original
       holdings shall be extinguished and he shall have the same
       rights, title and interest subject to modification, if any,
       specified in the final consolidation scheme in the plots
G      allotted to him thereunder.

       Rule 18. Procedure for eviction and catering into
       possession - The Consolidation Officer shall serve a
       notice on that person or persons liable to eviction under
       sub-section (2) of section 32 requiring him within 15 days
H
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HI MAC HAL                    1055
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

     of the receipt of the notice to vacate the land. If such notice   A
     is not complied with within the time specified therein, the
     Consolidation Officer may exercise the powers of a
     Revenue Officer under the Himachal Pradesh Land
     Revenue Act, 1954 or the Punjab Land Revenue Act,
     1887, as the case may be, for the purpose of putting in           B
     physical possession of the holdings the person entitled
     thereto."

     A reading of Section 14 of the Act extracted above would
     show that under the Section the State Government or its
     delegate may make a declaration that in the interests of          C
     the general public and for the purposes of better cultivation
     of land, it has been decided to make a consolidation
     scheme. Section 15 states that on publication of such
     declaration under Section 14, the concerned area shall be
     deemed to be under consolidation operations until the             D
     publication of a notification that the consolidation
     operations have been closed.

     12. The first question which we are called upon to decide
in this case is whether for any area where the consolidation           E
operation has not been closed by publication of a notification
under Section 15 of the Act, the State Government has the
power under Section 16( 1) of the Act to cancel the declaration
made under Section 14 in respect of that area. The bare
language of Section 16(1) of the Act is clear that the State           F
Government has the power to cancel the declaration made
under Section 14 in respect of any area "at any time". The
expression "at any time" in Section 16(1) of the Act though wide
is controlled by other provisions of the Act. As observed by Lord
Watson in Administrator-General of Bengal v. Prem/al Mullick           G
[(1895) ILR 22 Cal 788] " ... it is conceivable that the Legislature
whilst enacting one clause in plain terms, might introduce into
the same statute other enactments which to some extent qualify
or neutralise its effect." (See Principles of Statutory
Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 12th Edition Pages 36,
                                                                       H
    1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   37). The other provisions of the Act which we have to read to
    find the meaning of the expression "at any time" in Section 16(1)
    are Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Act. Section 32(1) of the
    Act quoted above provides that if all the owners and tenants
    affected by the scheme of consolidation or, as the case may
B   be, repartition, as finally confirmed agree to enter into
    possession of the holdings allotted to them thereunder, the
    Consolidation Officer may allow them to enter into such
    possession forthwith or from such date as may be specified
    by him. Section 32 further provides that if all the owners and
C   tenants as aforesaid do not agree to enter into possession
    under Section 32(1 ), they shall be entitled to possession of the
    holdings and tenancies allotted to them from the
    commencement of the agricultural year next following the date
    of the publication of the scheme under sub-section (3) of
    section 29, or as the case may be, of the preparation of the
0
    new record-of-rights under sub-section (1) of section 31 and
    the Consolidation Officer shall, if necessary, put them in physical
    possession of the holding to which they are so entitled, and in
    doing so, may exercise the powers of a Revenue Officer under
    the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 or the Punjab
E   Land Revenue Act, 1887, as the case may be. Section 35
    states that with effect from the date on which a tenure holder,
    in pursuance of the provisions of Section 32, enters into
    possession of the plots allotted to him, his rights, title and
    interest in his original holdings shall be extinguished and he
F   shall have the same rights, title and interest subject to
    modification, if any, specified in the final consolidation scheme
    in the plots allotted to him thereunder. Section 34 of the Act
    quoted above states that as soon as the persons entitled to
    possession of holdings under the Act have entered into
G   possession of holdings respectively allotted to them, the
    scheme shall be deemed to have come into force. It is, thus,
    clear that it is only when the persons entitled to possession of
    holdings under the Act have been delivered possession of the
    holdings that they acquire rights, title and interest in the new
H   holding allotted to them and the consolidation scheme in the
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                   1057
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

area is deemed to have come into force. Till such possession        A
of the allotted land under the consolidation scheme is delivered
to the allottees and the consolidation scheme is deemed to
come into force, the State Government has the power under
Section 16( 1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section
14(1) of the Act.                                                   B

     13. For this conclusion, we are supported by the decision
of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Chahat Khan
Bahadur Khan and others v. The State of Punjab and others
(supra) cited by Mr. Narasimha. Section 36 of the East Punjab C
Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1948 provided that a scheme for the consolidation of holdings
confirmed under the Act may, "at any time", be varied or revoked
by the authority which confirms it subject to any order of the
State Government that may be made in relation thereto and a
subsequent scheme may be prepared, published and D
confirmed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Full
Bench of the High Court held that though Section 36 says that
the power and jurisdiction conferred by it on the Settlement
Officer (Consolidation) may be used and exercised "at any
time", the expression "at any time" will have limitations as E
spelled out from the context in which it is used. The Full Bench
after referring to the various provisions of the 1948 Act held that
the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had no jurisdiction to
make the order varying or modifying the scheme of
consolidation in the village after the consolidation proceedings F
were completed and came to an end on the coming into force
of the scheme of consolidation of holdings and the taking of
possessions of the lands allotted to the land-holders on or about
February 16, 1959. (See AIR 1966 Punjab 111 at Page 125
Para 17).                                                           G

     15. In the instant case, the Additional Director
(Consolidation) by his order dated 15.07.1996 appears to have
decided on the valuation of the land of the parties and the areas
of land to be allotted to the appellant and to Damtal Mandir and
                                                                    H
    1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A the Consolidation Officer has also implemented the order of the
  Additional Director by his order dated 28.12.1996 and made
  mutation entries relating to the land, but no material has been
  produced before the Court· by the appellant to show that the
  possession of the land allotted to the appellant was given to
B the appellant in accordance with the statutory provisions in
  Section 32 of the Act and Rule 18 of the Rules. Since the
  appellant had not entered into possession of the holdings
  allotted to the appellant and Damtal Mandir has also not
  entered into possession of the holdings allotted to the Mandir
c pursuant to the orders passed by the Additional Director
  (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer and since the
  consolidation scheme had not come into force in the Revenue
  Estate Damtal, the State Government had the power under
  Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section
  14(1) of the Act.
0
        16. The next question which we have to decide in this case
  is whether the State Government was bound to follow the
  principles of natural justice before issuing the notification dated
  27.09.1999 under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the
E declaration under Section 14(1) of the· Act in respect of the
  Revenue Estate Damtal. Section 16(1) of the Act does not
  state that a show cause notice is to be issued to any party or
  that any party has to be heard before a notification is issued
  thereunder. Hence, the question which we have to consider is
F whether principles of natural justice should be read into Section
  16(1) of the Act. We have already held that the State
  Government can issue a notification under Section 16(1) of the
  Act cancelling the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act
  in respect of any area at any time before the persons entitled
G to possession of holdings under the Act have entered into
  possession of the holdings allotted to them. Since before the
  persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them,
  they do not acquire any right, title and interest in the holdings
  allotted to them and they do not lose in any manner their rights,
H title and interest in their original holdings, their rights are not
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                     1059
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

affected by the issuance of a notification under Section 16(1)        A
of the Act. In other words, a notification under Section 16(1) of
the Act issued by the State Government before delivery of
possession of the allotted holdings to persons has no civil
consequences and therefore the State Government is not
required to follow the principles of natural justice before issuing   B
such a notification.

     17. The last question which we have to consider is whether
the State Government has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and
in a malafide manner in cancelling the declaration under              C
Section 14 of the Act in respect of Revenue Estate Damtal by
the notification dated 27.09.1999. In the notification dated
27.09.1999 itself, it is stated that the Governor of Himachal
Pradesh after taking into consideration various representations
from public was of the opinion that it is not in the larger public
interest to continue with the consolidation operation in the          D
Revenue Estate Damtal Khas.

      18. Before the High Court, a report of the Deputy
 Commissioner, Kangra, with regard to the consolidation
 operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal was produced. In this         E
 report, the Deputy Commissioner has narrated various orders
 passed by the consolidation authorities in the Revenue Estate
 Damtal after the consolidation operations started in the village
·pursuant to the notification dated 19.11.1979. Paras 15 and 16
 of report in which the Deputy Commissioner has described             F
 how the consolidation operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal
 has not been done in the interest of the general public are
 extracted herein below:

     "15. Main objective of taking up consolidation operation
     in a revenue estate is the interest of the general public for    G
     the purpose of better cultivation of land as is provided in
     Section 14 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and
    "'Prevention Fragmentation) Act, 1971. The record
     prepared as a result of consolidation operation in revenue
     estate Damtal reveals a startling outcome of the                 H
    1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      consolidation operation in the said revenue estate. The
       holding of all the land owners in the revenue estate except
       that of Damtal Temple and Shri Harbhajan Singh have
       remained unaffected by the consolidatin operation. The
       land which the others held before consolidation operation
B      was allotted to them in the consolidation operation which
       means there was no change of possession etc. qua their
       land. It was only the land belonging to Damtal Temple and
       the one belonging to Shri Harbhajan Singh that too of
       uncultivated classification (which had nothing to do with the
c      interests of general public) that possession thereof was
       ordered to be disturbed at various levels of this operation.
       Thus the result of the consolidation operation (which is still
       continuing) in the said revenue estate is that a big chunk
       of land 52-95-87 hectares belonging to the Damtal Temple
       has been ordered to be taken away and given to Shri
D
       Harbhajan Singh. As has been explained above, there is
       a long chain of litigation which is still going on as a civil
       writ petition is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court about
       the consolidation operation in which inclusion and
       exclusion of land belonging to Damtal Temple and Shri
E      Harbhajan Singh has been ordered by all consolidation
       authorities has been challenged. Now District
       Administration is facing a public furor and criticism about
       the actions of consolidation authorities. Besides this, law
       and order problem is also taking place. The Damtal
F      Temple has been deprived of a very big chunk of land on
       which perennial stock of sand and bajri is available which
       can be a source of income for this religious endowment.
       By an estimate lacs of rupees can be fetched annually as
       royalty alone by allowing extraction of stones and bajri from
G      the said land of the temple.

       16. From the above discussion it is manifestly clear that
       no useful purpose has been served as a result of taking
       up consolidation operation in the revenue estate Darhtal
       and, therefore, it is recommended that declaration made
H
    HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL                     1061
       PRADESH & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

    under Section 14 regarding taking up consolidation                A
    operation in the said revenue estate may kindly be
    cancelled under Section 16 of the Act ibid so as to restore
    normally in the said area. If the declaration is so cancelled
    it will not affect right of any individual adversely as it will
    restore the pre-consolidation position qua the land               B
    belonging to each land owner in the revenue estate.
    Moreover, it will end the unnecessary litigation among the
    parties."

Thus, the Deputy Commissioner has reported to the State               C
Government that during the consolidation operation in the
 Revenue Estate Damtal the holding of all the land owners in
the revenue estate except that of Damtal Temple and the
appellant have remained unaffected by the consolidation
operation and the land which others held before the
consolidation operation was allotted to them in the                   D
consolidation operation and the only land which were sought
to be exchanged in the consolidation operations were the )and
belonging to the Damtal Temple and the land belonging to the
appellant which were not cultivatable land and which had
nothing to do with the interests of general public. The Deputy        E
Commissioner has further reported that Damtal Temple was
being deprived of a very big chunk of land on which perennial
stock of sand and bajri is available which can be a source of
income for this religious endowment. The Deputy
Commissioner has concluded in his report that no useful               F
purpose has been served by taking up consolidation operation
in the Revenue Estate Damtal and has recommended that
declaration made under Section 14 of the Act for taking up
consolidation operation in the Revenue Estate Damtal may be
canceiled under Section 16 of the Act. It appears that acting         G
on this report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 04.01.1999
the State Government has cancelled the declaration under
Section 14 of the Act in relation to Revenue Estate Damtal only
by the notification dated 27.09.1999.
                                                                      H
    1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTs'[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         19. Section 16(1) of the Act states that the State
    Government may at any time cancel the declaration made
    under Section 14 in respect of any area and is silent as to the
    factors which the State must take into consideration for
    cancelling a declaration made under Section 14 of the Act in
B respect of any area. Section 14'(1) of the Act, however,
    expressly states that the State Government while making a
    declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act has to keep in mind
    the interest of general public and the purposes of better
    cultivation of land. Where therefore after a declaration is made
c under Section 14(1) of the Act, the State Government finds that
    interest of general public and purposes of better cultivation do
    not warrant the consolidation operation to continue in a
    particular area, it can cancel the declaration made under
    Section 14(1) of the Act by issuing a notification under Section
    16(1) of the Act and such cancellation of the declaration will not
0
    be extraneous to the object of the Act. In the present case, the
    report of the Deputy Commissioner was clear that interest of
    general public and better cultivation of land would not be
    achieved by continuing the consolidation operation. The
E dominant purpose for issuing a notification under Section 16(1)
    of the Act was, therefore, not extraneous hut in accord with the
    objects of the Act. The High Court was, thus, right in coming to
    the conclusion that the notification issued by the State
  . Government under Section 16(1) of the Act in relation to
    Revenue Estate Damtal was legal and valid.
F
         19. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and
    we accordingly dismiss the same, but there shall be no order
    as to costs.

    N.J.                                          Appeal dismissed.