Prithi Singh and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh

V.P. Bhatnagar, J.—This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated December 18,1981 pass-ed by the Divisional Comnyssioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala.

The petition has arisen from the facts that Respondents 3 to 7 were allotted Shamlat land by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), orders dated September 27, 1975 and February 15, 1976., The Petitioners preferred an of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974(in short the Act"), before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who had been authorized by the State Government to hear such appeals by a Notification dated September 17, 1975. Tide his order dated February 28, 1977 at annexure PA the Divisional Commissioner accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of allotment. Respondents 3 to 7, how-ever, agitated the matter before the High Court where an order was made On July 29, 1977 quashing the order at Anne Mire PA on the sole ground that Respondents 3 to 7 had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard. The Respondents No. 3 to 7 were then arrayed 4s parties before the Divisional Commissioner, who by this order dated October 31, 1977 Annexure PB once again cancelled the allotment made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil),Hamirpur. Respondents 3 to 7 still had the grievance that they had, not been properly heard. Another opportunity was therefore given to them to be heard and the Divisional Commissioner made Anr. order dated August 27, I979 at Annexure PC canceling the allotments. It appears that Respondent 3 to 7 thereafter Himachal Pradesh, who sent their application to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on the ground that he had no powers: under the Act to revise/review the impugned orders of the Divisional Commissioner, kangra and that it was the Divisional Commissioner Kangra who could review his order if he so ed, The Divisional Commissioner Kangra, December 18, 1981 at Annexure PD reviewed his earlier orders and held that the allotments made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur were in order. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of review, the present petition has been filed in this Court.

This Petition will have to be accepted on the short ground that the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had no power what, so ever to recall an order made by his on merits and re-decide the same. The Act as well as the 1975 Scheme framed there under confers no powers of review on the Divisional Commissioner specifically and such powers cannot be inferred by necessary implication. It is well settled law that the power of review is not an inherent power. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, it was noticed that Saucashtra Land Reforms Act ( 25 of 1951) contained no provision from which the powers of the state Government to review its own order could be gathered. It was then held that the Commissioners functioning as delegates of the functions of the State Government could not review their orders. Reference in this connection may also be had to the law laid down by his Court in Rattan Dev Singh v. The Director Consolidation of Holdings and Ors. ILR 1982 HP 755. Thus, the proposition of law that the Divisional Commissioner Kangra had no power to review his earlier orders cannot be disputed. Merely because Respondents 3 to 7 had approached the Financial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh who had forwarded their application to the Divisional Commissioner Kangra for reviewing the earlier orders would not confer much a non-existent power on the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra.

In the above view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the order dated December 18, 1981 at Annexure PD passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra quashed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.