1965 (9) TMI 53 - SC - Indian Laws

Director's Lack of Review Authority Leads to Invalidation of Subsequent Order

The Supreme Court held that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, did not have the authority to review his earlier decision, making the subsequent ... - Issues:1. Whether the Director, Consolidation of Holdings had the power to review his previous order dated 3rd April, 1958 rejecting the application of Harbhajan Singh under s. 42 of the Act.2. Whether the subsequent order of the Director dated 29th August, 1958 allowing the application of Harbhajan Singh was legally valid.The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings Act, 1948. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, had allowed a revision petition by Harbhajan Singh on 29th August, 1958, setting aside an earlier order by the Assistant Director. However, the High Court quashed this order on the grounds that the Director did not have the power to review his previous order dated 3rd April, 1958. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, emphasizing that in the absence of an express power of review, the Director could not revisit his earlier decision. Citing legal precedents, the Court affirmed that unless granted by statute, no authority can set aside a properly made order. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions in granting review powers and emphasized the finality of orders once made, unless specifically provided otherwise.In a similar case cited by the Court, involving the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Collector's order to reconsider previous decisions was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction due to the absence of review powers. The Court reiterated that without statutory authority, revisiting finalized orders is impermissible. The judgment emphasized the need for legal provisions to grant review powers, underscoring the principle that decisions should remain unassailed unless a statutory mechanism for setting them aside exists. The Court rejected the notion of inherent jurisdiction to review orders, stressing the importance of legislative intent in conferring such powers.Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, lacked the authority to review his earlier decision, rendering the subsequent order of 29th August, 1958 allowing Harbhajan Singh's application ultra vires and illegal. Consequently, the High Court's decision to quash the Director's order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. The judgment underscored the significance of statutory provisions in conferring review powers and reiterated the principle that orders, once made, should not be revisited without explicit statutory authorization.