Holding

Section 33 does not provide a reservoir of power for multiple revisions of the same order, and the 31 May 1963 letter was not a decision under that section; therefore the 15 March 1965 order was the first valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Summary

The case concerned the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948 and the scope of the Central Government's revisional power under its Section 33. Harnam Singh, a displaced person, and his family had obtained land allotments which were later challenged. The Central Government first sent a D.O. letter on 31 May 1963, which the High Court treated as a decision under Section 33, thereby exhausting the revisional power. The Government later issued an order on 15 March 1965 cancelling the earlier allotments. The Supreme Court held that the 1963 letter was not a decision under Section 33 and that Section 33 does not allow the same order to be revised repeatedly. Consequently, the 1965 order was the first valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the High Court's judgment was set aside, with the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

The nature and extent of the power conferred by Section 33 of the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948, particularly whether it can be exercised more than once on the same order.
Whether the D.O. letter of N.P. Dube dated 31 May 1963 constitutes a decision of the Central Government under Section 33.
If the 1963 letter is not a decision, whether the Central Government's order dated 15 March 1965 is within jurisdiction.
Whether the Central Government may reopen and cancel the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s order of 21 August 1961 after a prior exercise of revisional power.

Legislation cited

Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948s. 14, s. 22, s. 23, s. 2(b), s. 2(c), s. 33, s. 7, s. 8

Subjects

revisional powerSection 33Punjab Refugees Actfinality of administrative ordersjurisdictionland claimsdisplaced personsmultiple revisions

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA & ANR A
v.
AVTAR SINGH & ANR .
•
April 4, 1984
' B
(D. A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA E~AD!, JJ.]

Punjab Refugees (RegiJtration of Land Claims). A ct; 1948-s. 33-
Revisional ppwer 'of Central Government-Scope of-Whether can be
ex'ercised repeatedly.
Cl
One Harnam Singh, filther of the respondents, was owner of some
agricultural land in the erstwhile· Siad Province now forming part of
Pakistan. After the partition of the country he along with· his· wife and
three ·sons migrated to India. As displaced person,J:ie lodged a claim on
March"lS, 194g in respect of his entire holding on Pakistan. On the
introduction of the Punj.ab Refugees' (Registration of'La.nd Claims) Act,
D
1948. on April 3, 1948 the said Harnam Singh, his sons and. his wife
filed separate claims alh;ging that in 1946 there was an oral partition of
the land which origioaIJy belonged to Ha.roam Singh. The claims were
verifi~d and allotments were made in favour of each claimant. The
Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected a .reference from the department
and by his order dated August 21, 1961 held the allotments to be valid.
Apprehending that tlle claim of ownership of I.and in Sind and the
E
partitioD. between· himself, his sons and his wife and the allotnicnt of land
was being re·examiped, on March 13, 1962 Haroam Singh submitted a
represen~ation to the Government of India for issuing a direction under
· s. 33 of the Act that the matter be treated as finally settled. On this
representation, Shri N. _P. Dube, Joint Secretary to the Government·of
India, Department of .Rehabilitation wrote a D. 0. let1er dated Ma)' 31, F
J 96f to Shri J.• M. Tandon, Deputy Secretary to the Government" of
Puojab, Rehabilitation Department, saying, inter alia.- c'that there is no '
polnt in \\aitii1g any more and the mat~er should be finalised on lhe basis
of the judical findings arrived ~t in the case. We also feel that there are
no reasons to differ from those judicial pronouncemeots at this stage~
The record received from the Punjab Government is, the~efore, returned G
with thC request that the case may be finalised as mentioned above". It
appears "thaf the Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation Departinent,
Punjab Goeernment sublllitt~d a '·note to moVe the Central Government
under s. 3 3 of the Act for reopening and cancellation of the order of the
Chief Settlement Commissioner dated August 21, 1961. Thereupon a
notice was issued to the allotees calling upon them to show cause why H
the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner datod August 21, 1961
should not be set aside and allotment in .favour of each of them should
..

. . 392

A
sUPREMll COURT REPORTS . !1984} 3 s·.c.R.

not be cancel1ed. The al!otees contended that since.the power of revision
..
~·

conferred by s. · 33 of the Ac~ had already been exercised by the Central
Government. the same pow.Jr Qf revision·could not be.repeatedly exercjsed
particularly when no fresh material against the· allotees was prOduced
after the ee).rlier decision. Ultimately a Joint Secretary to the Govern-
ment of India exercising Power of revision conferred bys. 33 by his order
dated March 15; 1965 quashed and set aside the order of the Chief
B Settlement Comniissioner dat~d August 21, 1961 and further· directed that
the .allotment of land in favour of Harbans Siog!'t~ bi~ sons and his wif~
be cancelled and that a fresh' allotment be made on the fc;>oting that
Harnam Singh alone was_ the owot:_r of lb~ Ian~ situated in Sind. The
~.: validity of the order dat'd March 15, 1965 of the Joint Secretary was '
challenged in the.Higb,Court by two sons of Harnam Singh, respondents ·
in this apptaJ. ~roadly agreeing with the view taken by- a learned o&in8;le
c Ju.dge, a Division Bench while dismissing the Letters: Patent appeal in the
High Court, held that the D. 0. Le\ter of the Joint Secretary dated May
31, .1963 conveyed the decision of the Government of India in exercise. of
powers under s. 33 and therefore, the power of revision against the order
: of the ·Chief Settlement Commissioner was eXhausted~because.a quasi ..
judicial tribunal bad no power to revise or review its e·arncr decision on
merltS even if the earlier decision was wrong on facts OJ law. Acc,ordingly ,
D th.e.High Court ~eld·that the impugn,ed order of the Go.v~rnm:nt df.India
•ctated March 15, 1965 was·witbout jurisdiction and w.5 invalid and' of
-no lega~ effi.C!fY· Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal,

HELD : The. contention that ~he ·power of revision cannot bo repea
E tedly exercised and finality must attach to the orders would necessilat ..
an examination iil depth rof the nature· and extent of power conferred by
section 33 of the Punjab Refugees (Registrati.on of Claims) Act, 1!>48
which enables the Central Government to revise ~nd reopen any proe-
ceeding under ~be Act and to pass ·any Order in relation thereto as in the
opU:tion of the Central Governmenl the circumstances of the -case i'equire
and a& is not-inGonsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act
or the Rules4Dade thereunder. But in the facts of the 4present case it
is ·not necessafy to undertake this exercise. The Court would proceed on·
\.
the assumption that section 33 of the Act does not provide reservoir .of
'
power from which revisional jurisdiction.can b~ exercised more than once
in.respect of the same order or the same proceeding. [403E-F]

G Jn the instarit case the questic~ which would squarely arise is .wbe·
. ther on an earlier occasion, tbe Central Government h::d exercised any
r.evisional power cenferred· by section 33 in tespect of the order dated
-August 21, 1961 of the Chief Seltlet'nent Col'pmissioner. In other .Words,
whether, as contended by the appellants, the letter of Shri N. P. Dube,
Joint Secretary dated May 31, 1963 is a decision recorded by the Central
Governnlcnt in exetcise of .the power conferred by section 33 ·7 The letter
of Mr. Dube dated May 31, 1963 does not record any decision of the
Central ·Government. It merely says that it is not necessary to wait any
tnore fQr r.espons~ to the queries addreSsed to authorities in .Pakistan and
• UNION v. AvTAR SINGH (Desai, J.) 393
•
the matter should be finalised .on the basis of finding-arrived at in tbe A
case. IL further proceeds to aver that there is a feeling that there is no ,.q
reason to differ from those judicial pronou11ce.ments at 'this stage'. Such .
expression of feeling- could hardly tentamount to a decision of the Ceptral
Government under Sec. 33. By this letter the Central 'Government lnformed~
the Government of Punjab that the record is -returned with the request
that the case may b~ finalised as indicated in the letter. The rev,isional B

.· . power is tl1e po,vcr of the Central Government and not of the Punjab
Governm·ent. The decis.ion was Jeft to the Punjab Government. There
was nothing pending with the Punjab 9overnment for finalisation There-
fore, the High Court was clearly in error· in tteq.ting,the letter of Shri
Dube dated May 31, 1963 as a decision of the Central Government in
exercise of the power conferred ·by Sec. 33·. There was no occasion for
the Central Government to exercise power under Sec. 33 and therefore, C
it is not possible to agree with the, Righ Court that the letter records the
decision of the Central Government under sec, 33. If the letter of Shri
Dube is not a decision al the Central Government uDder Sec. 33 of the .'
Act. as a necessary coro11ary, the impugned decision must be treated as
one renderer. for the first time in· exercise of the revisional power under·
Sec. 33 and therefore, it cannot be said to be one without jurisdiction.
(403 G; 404 A; F_:G; 405 B-E] 0
'D. N. Roy and S. K. Bannerjee & Ors. v. State of Bihar ·&Ors.
(1971] 2 S.C.R. s2'2.
If every litigant in whose favour a competent authority has made an
order can still appn1ach the bighei authority for the affirmanCe of the
•

-
orJer witbont any rhyme or reason, the whole gamut of power of revisio- E
nal jurisdiction )VOUld become a play thing for already successful party
who muy fOreclose the decision and when needed can successfully urge
" that lhe power of revision is exhausted. [404 E-F]

CivIL APPELLATE JURisDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 503 of
1971.
r
. From the Judgme11t and Order dated 2-2.5.1969 of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 384 of 1966.

M.M. Abdul Khader and Ms. A. Subhashinifor the appellants.

· P.P. Rao foF the Respondent No. I and R.S. Bindra and Har· G
bans Singh for respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the .Court was delivered by

DEs~1, J. Avfa~ Singh and Dr .. Kartar Singh two sons of
S.Harnam Singh filed Civil Write No. 1242 of. 1965 against their H
., fathers. H,;;\rnam Singh, respondent No. 2 and Union of India
and Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, re·spondents Nos. I and 3 res·
'394 SUPRm.iE COURT REPORTS .U984] 3 s.c.lt.

pectively questioning the correctness and vali<lity of an order dated
March 15, oi96~, Anneimre 'G' to the petition.

S. Ha~nam Singh was the owner· of agdcultural land compri·
sed in Deh·No.)00 as also a portion of the land included in Qoh
No. 99 situated in District Nawab Shah, in erstwliile Sind Pr0vi-.
B ·nee now forming part .of ·Pakistan. Harnam Singh h~d three •
sons : Avtar singh, Dr. Kartar Singh and Hu bans Singh. Smt.
Tej Kaur was· the wife of Harnam Singh. It was alleged that ia
the year 1946 Harnam Singh dfected a partition of agricultural
land between himself, his three sons and hi"s wife Smt. Tej Kaur
each being given an almost equal share. It was alleged · thaf inti-
c mation of the alleged partition was sent to the revenue autho-
rities of Sind Province with a request to effect necessary mutation
.in the revenu\records showing land as haying been given in the
partition to the particular person .. After the partition oft)le conn-
.· try S. Harnam Singh his three sons and hi; wife migrated to India
and they claim to be displaced persons. ' Harnam Singh lodged a
D claim on March 15, 1948 in respect 6.f the entire land including
the Jand belonging to •the heirs of Ch. Attar Singh who was his
father-in-iaw. Later on, on April 21, 1948 Harnam Singh intimated
to the ~ehabilitation Authorities that out of a total claim of 300
acres of land lodged ~y ·him, about 75 acres of land• was of ti)e
ownership of Ch. Attar Singh and confine?! his clai111 to•the total •
.E · area of 225 acres of land. It may be mentioned that in the claim
lodged on March 1,5, 1948 there was no reference to the partition . .J •
effected by Harnam Singh between himself his sons and his wife. • . I"

On the introduction of the Punjab Re.fugees (Registration of Ljtnd
Claims) Act, 1948 ('Act' for short) on April 3, 194S Harnam
Singh and his sons as also Smt. Tej Kaur filed separate claims ~µ
F the basis of the partition of the land ·which originally belonged to
.s. Harnam Singh. It was alleged that .these claims were verified
and allotments of land were made· to th.e extent of 21-8 standard
acre~ in favont of each claimant on temporary liasis. On October
5, 1953, Harnam Singh and his sons approached the .authorities
in the Rehabilitation Department' to convert temporary allotment
G into quasi-permanent allotment. Deputy Registrar °Land. Claims
accepted the request of Harnam Singh and his sons, both with
regard to the ownership of the land as well as partition thereof
amongst various members of the family. I!owever, it was recom-
~ended that on the basis of the revjsed calculations, each claimant
would be entitled to 19-LH S.A. of land instead of 21-8 S.A.
H and the excess allotment should be cancelled This recommenda;
tion was approved by the competent antho.rity vide its order dated,
UNION v. AVTAR SiNGH (l>esai, J.) 39S
•
October 28, 1953 as also by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Pro- A
perty as per its order dated November 11, 1953. Conseqirently
excess allotment of 8-14,l . standard ·a.ores in respect of five clai-
mants was cancelled and the remaining allotment was ordered to
be made on cjuasi-permane1if basis.. It was alleged that later on
proprietary rights were conferred on each claimant in respect of
. the land allotted to him by the Managin·g Officer. Some time in B
1960, a notice was received by the allottees from ihe Chief Settle-
ment Commissioner1 Punjab calling upon them to show cause why
their allotment should not be cancelled. In view of the notice,
it became necessary for the allottees to eatabhsh not only the
ownership of land in Sind but the partition thereof amongst them-
selves. The allottees claimed that they offered the necessary proof c
which satisfied the Chief Settlement Commissioner who had issued
notice on the basis of Jamabandi entries received from Pakistan.
Accordingly the Chief Settlement·commissjoner by his ~rder dated
. August 21, 1961 c_onfirmed the allotment, directed conferment of
quasi-permanent status and rejected the departmental reference.
Somewhere in October 1961 , Harnam Singh apprehended that D
the claim to ownership of land in Sind and the partition between
himself, his sons and his wife and the allotment of land was being
re-examined whereupon on March 13, 1962 he submitted a re-
presentation to the Government of India for issuing a direction ·
under Section 33 of the Act that the matter be treated as finally
.. settled. It is alleged.that on this representation, the Government E
of India sent for the record of the whole case, called for
the comments of the Punjab Rehabilitation Department which
led Land Claims Officer to forward his note dated October
27, 1961 to the Government of India alongwith the whole record ·
of the case. It' is alleged that the case was examined and the
Joint Secretary· 'to the Government of India, Ministi·y of Reha- F
biiitation, one Shri Dube, conveyed the decision. of the Gov~rn
ment of India to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of
Punjab, Rehabilitation. Department, Jullundur vide his D.O.
Letter No. 13(66) L&R0-62 dated May 31, 1963 with certain ob-
servations which it is alleged tend to ;how that the power of revi-
sion under Sec. 33 ·was ex_ercised and. both, the holding of the land G
in Sind, partition thereof betwen, Harnam Singh, his sons and his
wife and the allotment of land to them as displaced persons in
India were considered as valid and finally settled. It appears that
the Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation Department, Punjab
Government submitted a. note dated November 5, 1963 to move
the Central Government under Sec. 33 of the Act for cancellatiou · H
of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner· dated 11.ugust
•
,
•

• . SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS

A 21, 1961. 1hereupon the Chief Settlement Co~missioner issued a
notice da!ed May 21, 1964 to the ~Ilottees calling upon them to
show cause why allotment in favour of each of them should not be
cancelled The allottees appeared and submitted .their objections
.to the re-opening of the cas_e inter alia contending that the power
of revision conferred by Sec. 33 of the Act cannot be repeatedly •
~- B exercise and it having been earlier exercised and the al!otfilent
having been held to be valid as Per the letter of Shri Dube dated ,
May 31, 1963, the Central Government had no jurisdictio11 either
to ·revise or review its previous decision more p~rticularly
when no fresh material -against the allottees is produced after the
earlier decisio11. Ultimately the Joint Secretary of the 6overn-
c -ment of India exercising power of revision co11ferred by Sec. 33
. by his order ilated March 15, 1965 Annex. G to the writ petition
quashed and set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commis-
sioner .dated August 21, 1961 and. further directed that the allot-
ment of lal)d in favour of Harnani Singh, his sons and his wife be
cancelled and that a fresh allottnent be made on the footing that
Harnam Singh alone was the owner of the land situated in Sind.
. D In other words, the claim that each sons of Harnam Swgh ha\i
acquired land on partition was rejected· as untenable. Thereupon,
two sons of Harnam Singh, Shri Avtar Singh and Dr. Kartar
Singh filed· Civil Writ P~tition in the High Court of Punjab at
Chandigarh.

An affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. I and 3 by one A. G. Vaswani, Settlement Commissioner
(A) & Ex-Officio Under Secretary to the G~vernment of India,
Ministry of Labour Employment & Rehabilitation inter a/ia con-
tending that in April 1948 when for the first time Shri Harnam
Singh lodged· his claim a~ displaced person against the loss of his
land and property, in Pakistan, he had categorically stated that ·
225 acres _of land situated in Sind belonged to him and there was
no express or implied, overt or covert reference or even a whisper
of a partition between himself· and .his sons and wife before he
migrated to lni!ia. 'It was also contended that the claim lodged
G by Harnam Singh in Aplil, _1948 was attested by Shri Harnam
Singh, then Deputy Custpdidn of Evacuee Property, East Punjab
and at the relevant time Judge.· of the Punjab High Court. It
is alleged tbat on the basis of the alleged partition, separate
claims were lodged for the first time in Jum; 1948 each claiming
48 acres of land which was ·reduced to 32 acres. It was speci-
H fically contended that tJu, separate claims on the basis of
\llle~ed oral partition were an after thohugt and w~re submitted '
~
UN'roli v. AVTAR SINGH (Desai, J.)

to· escape a higher graded cut under the Quasi-permanent Allot- A
ment Scheme. Other averments in the affidavit are hardly releyant.
With respect to the D. 0. Letter of Shri Dube, it was stated that
the opinion expressed in it was not a judicial decision in exercise
of the revisionai jurisdiction under Sec. 33 of the Act nor could
it constitute an exercise of power under Sec. 33 of the Act. It was
submitted that the revis;onal power was exercised for the first B
.J time when the allotment was cancelled and a direction was given
for fresh allotment on the basis that Harnam Singh alone, was the
owne1: of the land situated in Sind.

The wr.it petition came up before a learned Single Judge of
the High Court. The learned Judge by his Judgment and order c
dafed October 4, 1966made the rule absolute and quashed the
: order dated March 15, 1965.

The Union of India prefer1 ed Letters Patent Appeal No. 384
of I 966 .which was heard by a Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. 1 he Di vision Bench broadly agreed with D
the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the 'D. 0. letter .
of Shri Dube dated May 31, 1963 conveyed the decision of the
Government of ·India in exercise of powers under Sec. 33 and
therefore, the power of revision against the order· of the Chief
Settlement Commissicne'11 was exhausted because a quasi-judicial
·tribunal has no p'ower to revise or review hs earlier decis on on
merits even if the 'earlier decision is wrong on facts or law'.
Accordingly, while dismissing the L.P. Appeal the High Court held
that the impugneo order of the Government of India dated March
15, 1965 was without jurisdiction and was invalid and bf no legal
efficacy. Hence this appeal by- special leave by the Union of
F
India.
•
Mr. Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the appellant urged
that the High Couri was in error in treating D. O. letter No~ 33
(66)/L&R0-62 of Shri N._ P. Dube dated May 31, 1963 as a
decision reached or. re.corded in exercise of the power conferred
by Section 33 so as to cxhailst'the power of.revision. Consequently, G
it, was urged that the High C<,mrt was in error in holding that the
aecision of the Central Government dated March 15, 1965 was
without jurisdiction. · ·

Chronology of events and the assertion and counter assertion
would reveal that controversy centres ronnd the nature and cha-. H
racter of the letter dated May 31, 1963 of Shri N. P. Dube, Joint
398 sUPREME COURT REPOR'fS [1984) 3 S.C.R.

A Secretary to Shri J.M. Tandon, Deputy Secretary to the Govern-
ment of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur. More
specifically the question is whether it was an inter-departmental
c.ommunication or it was the decision 1ecorded in exercise of
the power conferred by Sec. 33 of the Act? If it was not a decision
recorded by the Central Government in exercise ot the power
.B conferred. under Sec. 33 the judgment of the High Court would
be unsustainable.

The Act as its long title shows was enacted to provide· for the
payment o( compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced ..
persons and for matters connected therewith: Consequent upon
c the pllrtition of the country, there was migration of population both
the ways. Large number ofresidents of atea now forming part
of Pakistan migrated to India and there was also a flow in the
reverse direction-. Those who migrated under those tragic, trau-
matic and compulsive circumstances were forced to leave their
·properties at the place t)ley were settled for generations. Both
D India and Pakistan were faced with a huge pro):ilem of settling
persons thus displaced. In order_ to compensate such displaced
. persons who were uprooted out of their abodes, the Act was
enacted.
Sec. 2 (b) defines 'displaced. person' to mean 'any person who,
E on account of the setting up of' the Dominions. of India and
Pakistan, or pn account of civil disti.Jrbapces or the fear· of such
disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, has, .
after the first day of March, 1947, left, or been di6placed .from, his
place of residence in suc'h area and who has been subsequently
residing in India, and incluc!'es any person who. is resident in any
F place now forming .part of India.and who for that reason is unable
or has been tendered unable to manage, supervise or control any ''
immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, and
also includes the sqccessors-in~interest of any such person.' 'Evc-
cuee property'_ has been defined in Sec. 2 (cJ to mean 'any pro·
perty which has been declared or is di:emed to have been declared
G as evacuee property under the A4ministration of Evacuee Property
Act, 1950.' Sec, 14 of the Act envisages constitution of ·a compen-
sation pool .which shall ·consist of evacuee prop~rty both.in cash
and kind. Sec. 4 requires all displaced persons having a verified
claim to make applications for the payment of c()mpensation. Sec.
7 casts a duty on the Settlement Commissio11er to make an enquiry ·
H
in such maruter as may be prescribed and having due regard to
the .prescribed scales of compensation, the nature .of the verified·
uNioN '· AVTAR SINGH (Desai, J.) 399

claim'and other circumstances of the case, to ascertain the amount ·A
of 'compensation to which the applicant is entitled. After follo-
wing the procedure prescribed m several sub-sections of Sec. 7,
the Settlement Commissioner has to make an order determining
net amount of compensation, if any, payable .to the applicant.
• Sec. 8 prescribes the form and manner of payment of compen-
sation. Compensation.can be paid in cash, in Government bonds, B
_,; by sale to the displaced person of any property from the compen-
" sation pool and setting off the purchase money against the com-
pensation payable to hi111 etc. Sec. 22 provides for appeal against
the order of tho Settlement Officer or . a Managing Officer to the
Settlement Commissioner as the case may be, in such form anc\
· manner as may. be prescribed. Sec. 23 provides for an appeal c
against the orders of the Settlem·nt Commissioner. or the Addi-
tional Settlement Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement
Commissioner to the Chfef Settlement Commissioner in such form
..... (· and manner as may be prescribed, with this proviso that no appeal
shall lie from any order passed in appeal under Sec. 22. The
next important section material for the present appeal is Sec. 33 D
which reads as under:-

"33 : The Central Government may at any time call
for the record of any pro;eeding under the Act a~d may
pass such order in relation thereto as· in its opinion the
circumstances of the case. require and as is not incons~tent E
with any of the provis;ons containe<I in the Act or the rnles
made thereunder."

Having noticed the relevant provisions, certain facts may be
reiterated. Harnam Singh a displaced person submitted a land
claim on March 15, 1948 at Delhi for an area of 300 acre,S said to JJ'
have been abandoned by him in Nasrat Tehsil, district Nawabshah
• 'in Sind. He filed another claim at Jullundur on April 1, 1948,
~ reducing ,his claim to 225 acres. On July. 13, 1948, Harnam
· Singh and his three son~ Kartar Singh, Avtar Singh and Harbans
Singh and his wife.Sm!. Tej Kaur lodged separate claims each for
48 acres of land in lieu of land alleged to have been abandoned by
each one of them in Pakistan. There was a modified claim sub-
mitted on Febrnary 22, 1949. The' difference b.etween the first
· and the second claim arises from the altered ~tand adopted by the
claimants. Initially Harnam Singh claimed to be. the exclusive
owner of 225 acres of land but when separate claims were sub- .
H
lliltted by hi~ three sons [ind his wifo it was alleged that th~re was
orapl artition. of the property belonging to Harnam Singh betwee~
•

StjPRllMll COURT IUlPORTS [1981] j s.c.ti.

himself his wife and his three sons. Each one of the. five claimanis
Verified hii own claim, whereupon each was alloted 21-8 s. A. of ·
land: Upon thejr- reqtiest !<1 convert ~emporary allotment into
quasi-permanent allotment, their cases #'ere e~amined by the
Managing Officer who found that there was an excess aliotnierlt of
1-121/2 standard acres in case of each of the claimants and with
B
their consent the. excess area of 8-141 /2 standard areas was can-
celled. A. little while after the officer in-charge (Land claims)
Jullundnr examined the case of each of the clai!]iants and made a
reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on September 2,
!960 recommending that 48-14 standard acres was in ex~ess of the

• entitlement of the five claimants in view of the entries· in· Jama-
bandi and the excess allotment-be cancelled. A further enquiry ·
revealed that the· claim of Harnam Singh that there was partition
between himself· and his sons. was uµtenable and. that except
Harnam Singh, the other claimants did riot have any land of their
ownership and therefore· tl{e e~tire allotment deserved to be
cancelled. 'fhe Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected the
D
reference by his order dated August 21, 1961. It is this order
which has .been revised by the Central Governmentin exercise of
. the power conferred by Sec. , 33 by the impu~cd .order dated •
March 15, 1965;

Ii •
.
It would . appear from the mere •recital of the facts·
. that the
.
Chief Settlement Commissioner who rejected the reference ·as per
its order dated August 21, 1961 held the allotment in favour of
the five claimants to be valid, legal and correct.

'
If the decision of the chief 'settlement· Commissioner dated
F
August 21, 1961 is wholly in favour of Harnam Singh and his sons
and wife, they' could, .by no stretch of-imagination, be said to be
pers6ns aggrieved by t_he decision of the-Chief Settlement Commis-.
sioner. Harnam Singh a.nd his sons contended that the allotment
•
was valid and that the reference niade by .the Officer-in-charge ·
(land claims) department must be rejected. The Chi'ef Settle-
ment Commissioner accepted this submission of'llarnam Singh
'
and his sons and rejected the reference. Can it ever b~ said that
a decision wholly .in favour of Harnam Singh and his sons is one
adverse to them or that they are aggrieved by the decision.?

H· It is now necessary to turn to an intervening event .. It appears
that the Chief Settlement Commissioner whi!e rejecting the refe- '> ~..,
rence and accepting. the allotment in favour of Harnam ~in~ am;\. ..
UN!ON v. A.VT/.R SINGH (Desai, J.)

his sons on the basis of holding and oral partition as legal and i\
valid observed in para 12 of the order as.under;

"Further in the terms of the proprietary rights Sarlad if
any, evidence comes to the notice of the department which
~ establishes any of the facts mentioned in the clause below,
the Central Govt. can at any time resume whole or any part B
of the property."
,. J.
After convening temporary allotment into quasi-permanent allot-
ment a Sanad was issued to each ctaimant. One condition in the
Sanad was trult if it appears at any time that the grant or allot- ·
ment of land described in the Sanad, is obtained by fraud, lalse
c
. representation or concealment <;>f any material fact, it shall be law-
ful ·for the President to resume the whole or any part of·the said
property so allotted.
~
In view of the aforementioned observations and in absence D
of any document evidencing partition of the property as cJaimed
by Harnam Singh, the Punjab Government made. a reference to
the Pakistan authorities for the necessary verification of entries in
the Government record. A similar request was also ·addressed to
• the Central Government which lrd to a query being addressed to
the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan to obtain documen- Ii
-~ tary evidence if any in this behalf. Nothing concrete emerged
from these queries. In the meantime, Hamam Singh submitted •
a r~presentation (Annexure 'B' to the petition) dated March 13,
1962 to the Government of India for· issuing a directic!n under
Sec. 33 of the Act that the matter be treated as finally settled.
Some correspondence ensued betwe'll.J the Union Government and · F
the Government of Punjab which ultimately led to Shri NJ>. Dube,
' Joint Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation sending a letter dated •
.J. May 31, 1963 tp the Deputy Secretary to the Government of
Pnnjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur which reads as
under·:
G

"N.P. Dube, Regd. A.D.
Joint Secretary. D.O. No. 13 (66)/L&R/62
W.H.&R.
-... .J'
(Department of Rehabilitation) H
~!st May, l963
'
I

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

A My dear Tandon,

Pleas~· refer to Balmukand Sharma's D.O'.. letter. No. 422/
SINGH dated the 29th August, 1962, in connection with the re- .
presentation filed by Shri Harnam. Singh P.C.S. (Retd.) .. The High'
Commissioner for India in Pakistan was also addressed by Secre-
B tary in. August, 1962, to get the required information but the
Pakistan Government have 'not been able to supply it so far. The.
matter has, therefor, ·.been considered in this office· and it is frlt
that there is.no point in. waiting any more and the matter should
_be finalised on the basis of the judicial findings arrived at in the,
case. We also feel that there arc no reasons to differ fr<ill,l those
c judicial' pronouncements at this stage. The record received from
the Punjab Government is, therefore, returned with the request
that the case may be finalised as mentioned above.

Yours sincerely,
. Sd/-
D N.P. Dube
1.6..63

Shri J.M. 'fandon,
Deputy Secretary· to the •
Government of Punjab,
E • Rehabilitation Department,
Jullundur."
On November 5, 1963, the· Managing Officer, Rehabilitation
Department, Goyernment of Punjab submitted a note inter alia
pointing out that the story .of partition alleged ·by Harnam Singh .
F and his sons is a myth and conse~uently, except Harn~m Singh,
no other claimant was entitI.ed . to any allotment and.therefore, the
decision of the Chief .Settlement Comissioner dated August 21,
!961 requires to be reopened under Sec 33 and allotment upheld
by him should be cancelled. Upon this note a reference was made
". to the Central Government. Thereupon a nouce dated Maj 21,
G
·1964 was issued to Haruam Singh and his sons, his wife Smt. Tej
Kaur having, died in the meantime, calling upon them to show
why the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated
August 21, 1961 should not be set aside and the allotment in.
favour of each allottee be not cancelled. Ultimately, the impugned
H order was passed.

1J11dou.btedly, the impul1!led order is 111a<!e under Se9. 3~
... UNiON v. AVTAR SINGH (Desai, J.)
'
403

which confers a wide power' of revision on the Central Govern- A
ment. The power of widest amplitude for revising and· reopening
any proceeding under the Act and to pass any order in relation
thereto as in.the opinion of the Central Government the drcu.m-
stances of the case require and is not inconsfstenhvith any of the
provisions contained in the Act or the rules made thereunder
is conferred on the Central Government This is undoub- B
tedly a power of revision. It is not even hedged in by any
concept of limitation. Such power of wide plenitude had to
be conferred on the Central Government to set. right any illegal
unfair, unjust or plainly untenable order because the pro-
ceedings under the Act. were· ·not adversary in form and
character which may. lead to the one or the other party approa~h c
ing \he Central Governmeflt to set right the matter. If a displaced
person obtains allotment from the_ compensation pool, to which
be was not entitled, certainly .the Central Government would
hlrdly come to know in the absence of any opposite party or'
adversary drawing attention of the Central Government to such
" unjust enrichment. Therefore, Parliament coaferred a very wide D
power of revis10n on th_e Central Government. to reopen any
.
proceeding or order under the Act. This was hardly dispute'd .

· It was, however, contended that a ·power of revision cannot be
r_epeatedly exercised and there must be attached finality to the
E
orders. This submission would necessitate an examination in
depth· of the nature and extent of pow~r conferred by Sec. 33.
·But 'in the facts of the pre~ent case we consider it unnecessary to
undertake· this exercise. We would proceed on the assumption
that .Sec. 33 does not provide a reservoir of power from which , •
revisional jarisdiction can be exercise.cl more than once in respect
F
of the same order or the same proceeding. In this view of the
• · matter the decision in Everest Apartments Co-operative Housmg
Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and OrS. ('l is hardly of
any assistance.

The question that would. squarely arise is : whether on an G
·earlier occasion, hat\ the Central Governn1ent exercised any" revi-
-sional power conferred by Sec. 33 in respect of the order dated
August 21, 19~1 by the Chief Settlement Commiss_ioner by which
the llepartmental reference was rejected and "the Chief. Settlement
Commissioner had upheld the allotment of land in. favour of
fiarnam Singh and bis sons. H

O> [196~] 3 s.c.R. 365.
•

404.
·, .
.. SUPREME COURT RllPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R .
A Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the resllondents strenuously
urged that the lette.r of Shri N.P. Dube dated May 31, 1963 is a
Mcision recorded by ·the Central Government in exercise .of the
power conferred by Sec. 33 in respect of \he . proceeding in which
allotment made in favour of Harnam Singh and his sons was·
upheld by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and· therefore, the
B order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated August 21, 1961 •
. became final and could not be the subject matter of a revision
· second iime, under Sec. .33 of the Act. There is no. substance in
this contention.

It needs to be recalled that the decision of the Chief Settle·
c . ment Commissioner dated August 21, 1961 was wholly in favour
of Harnam Singh and his sons. Atleast Harnam Singh ahd his
sons could not be said to be persons agglleved bf tlie order SQ as
to move the Central Government invoking its revisional power
·under Sec. 33. Mr. Rao however, contended that the rej:>resen·
tation Annexure •ty dated March 13 of Harnam Singh reveals that
he apprehended that the case. may be reopened and therefore, by ,
his representation h~ moved the Central Governnientoto affirm or.
confirm the decision .of the Chief Settlement , Commissioner
dated August 21, 1961. We remain unimpressed. If every litigant
in whose favour a competent authority has. made an order ca~ still·
approach the higher authority for the · affirmance of the order
without any rhyme of reasoµ, the whole gamut of power of
· revisional jurisdiction would become a play thing for alreaQ.y_
successful party who ·may' foreclose the decision and when needed
can successfully urge that the power of revision is exhausted. Fur· ·
ther, a·ssuming Harnam Singh made the representation apprehending
F danger to his allotment, the letter of Mr. Dube dated May 31, 1963
does riot record any decision of the Central Government. It merely
says that it is not necessary to wait any more for response to the
·queries address~d to authorities in Pakistan and the matter should
be fiiria!ised cm the basis of finding acrived at in the case. It
further proceeds to aver that there is a feeling that th~re is no
G · reason to differ from those judicial pronouncements at 'this stage'.
Sucl;t expression of feeling could hardly tentamount to a decision
of the Central Government under Sec. 33. It is not for a moment ·
sugg@sted that the decision. of the Central Government has- to be
recorded in atiy particular form. In D.N. Roy and S.K. B_annerjee
& Ors. v. State of Bihal"& Ors. (1) a letter adpressed by Under·
H Secretary to the Government of Judi& to a particular person

(I)_ [1971] 2 S.C.R. S2~,
•
•

• \JNiON v. AVTARSiNGll (Desai, J.) • 405
' ~ .
Stating therein 'that with reference to the application of thee-add· A '

ressee on the subject noted, he was directed to say .that after
careful consideration ·the Central Government by the letter rejects
the revision application as being time-barred' was treated as a
decision of the Central Government. This calls for no comments
because the letter is self-explanatory. There is nothing ip Shri
Dube's letter remotely comparable with the letter in the afore· B
. mentioned case. ·On the contrary the Central Government infor·
med the Government of Punjab that •the record is returned .with
the request that the ciise may be finalised as indicated in the letter.
The revf;ional power is the power of the Central Government and
not of the Punjab Government. The deci;ion was left to the
Punjao Government: There was nothing pending with the Punjab c
Government for finalisation. Therefore, the High Court. was
clearly in error in treating the letter of Shri Dube dated May 31,
1963 as a decision of the Central Government jn exer. ise of the
power conferred by Sec. 33. There was no reason for decision nor
any occasion for the Central Goven,iinent to exercise power under
Sec. 33 and therefore, it is nol possible to agree with the High D
. Court that the letter records the decision of the Central Govern-
ment under Sec. 33. If the letter of Shri Dube is not a decisiOn
of the Central Government under Sec. 33 of the Act, as a neces· ·
sary corollary, the impugned docision .must tie treated as one
rendered for the first time in exercise of the revisional power
under Sec. 33, and therefor.e, it cannot be said to be one without E
jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, th(appeal will have ti> be
alloVLed. · ·

Mr. Bindra, learned counsel who appeared for some of the
respondents made a strenuous effort to persuade us to· look into F
the equities of the case. "rn fact, we are wholly disinclined to
undertake this exercise of evaluating facts or evidence in a petition
for a writ of certiorari. Further in the impugned decision· the fac!s
as appearing from the record and submissions made by the learned
counsel for claimants are exhaustively dealt with and ho c~se for
interferente is made out. Only two aspects howev~r may be G
referred to,

Hamam Singh claimed to be the owner of 225 acres of land
situated in erstwhile Sind Province .. In the first claim lodged by
him, he clearly stated that h•; was the owner of 300 acres. He then
modified it to 221 acres. In neither of the two claims he ever H
. '
suggessed that there was a partition between him and his sons also
giving a share to his wife. The story of partition clearly appears
•

406' •
SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1984] '.} .S.C.R.
A to be an ~fter t.hought because it is helpful in obtaining . higher
allotment. No documentary evide,nce has been placed on record
.to supportthe case of partition which clearly appears to have been
an after thought. Earlier .tamabandi entries· from Pakistan per-
mitted a negative. inference that there was no partition. The
B Central Governmens while setting aside the order pf. the. Chief
Settlement Commissioner dated August 21, 1961 recorded the.
fin'ding that : (i) there is no writing or deed of partition : (ii) Re-
venue records show the name of Shri Hamall] 'Singh alone. on.the
basis of the sale d~ed in his exclusive name : · (iii) there are no re-
c ceipts indicating s'epar.ate payment of land revenue by any' one of
the respondents after alleged partition; (iv) .no objection w11s taken
by the sons at the time of the filing of. the claim by the. father;
(v) there is .no mention .of individuals •hare in the claim filed
· by the ·father; These are relevant considerations· which wonl<l
D certainely throw doubt on the claim of oral partition alleged to _
·.have been effected by Haniam Singh: Once the allegation ·of oral
partition.is rejected, the respondents are not entitled io arty consi-
. deration even on equitable. "grounds, ..

E . In°fho concluding . stages of the arguments the .respondents ·
contended that Harnam Singh has died and his heirs ha.vi11g ii.ot
been substitued, the appeal has abated. T!\ere is no merit in this
contention. Harnam singh was not the petitioner before the high
Court. He was respondent· No,. 2. No relief was claimed against
him. Further Hamara Sillgh was not asked to surrender tlje ljlnd.
F Petitioners before the Hi,gh Court were adverself affected by the .
impugned dec.isiori. Death of Hilrnatn Singh would therefore,
have no impact on· this appeal. . Therefore, the contenti9,n is
rejected.

In view. of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and
G
the judgment and the order of the learned Single judge dated
· October 4, 1966 in Civil Writ No. 1242 of 1965 as also the judg- ·
ment aud order in.LP.A. No. 384 of 19.66 dated May 22, 1969 of
the same High Court are quaslfed and set aside and the. decision
of the Central Government dated March 15, 1965 is resiored with
H n 0 order as to costs throughout.

H. S. K.
'Y
'