1981 (4) TMI 273 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court directs single Judge to review Second Appeal impartially. Property dispute ruling reversed.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's decision and directed the single Judge to handle the Second Appeal without being influenced by the ... Scope of reference to a Division Bench - Finality of administrative order - Effect of administrative settlement on civil jurisdiction - Remand for fresh disposalScope of reference to a Division Bench - Whether the Division Bench erred in deciding the Second Appeal on merits when only a question of law was referred to it by the single Judge. - HELD THAT: - The single Judge had referred a specific question of law to the Division Bench. Having answered that question, the Division Bench ought to have returned the matter to the single Judge for disposal of the Second Appeal in accordance with law. By proceeding to dispose of the Second Appeal on merits and dismissing it with costs, the Division Bench exceeded the scope of the reference and adopted an incorrect procedure. The proper course is for the answer to the referred question to be sent back so that the single Judge may determine the appeal applying that answer. [Paras 1]Division Bench erred in deciding the Second Appeal on merits instead of returning the matter to the single Judge after answering the referred question.Finality of administrative order - Effect of administrative settlement on civil jurisdiction - Whether the order dated 21-1-1963 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was final and binding on the civil proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Division Bench's view that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was not final and binding in the civil proceedings is accepted. That administrative order does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine whether there was encroachment on the property conveyed under the sale certificate and its corrigendum. The single Judge is to proceed on the basis that the administrative order of 21-1-1963 is not conclusive between the parties in the civil appeal. [Paras 1, 2]The Chief Settlement Commissioner's order dated 21-1-1963 is not final and binding in the civil proceedings and does not exclude the Civil Court's jurisdiction.Remand for fresh disposal - Disposition required of the Second Appeal following the Division Bench's error and the determination as to the effect of the administrative order. - HELD THAT: - In view of the procedural error and the legal position that the administrative order is not final and binding, the matter is remitted to the single Judge of the High Court for fresh disposal of the Second Appeal. The single Judge is directed to determine, having regard to the boundaries and area specified in the sale certificate dated 7-6-1963 read with the corrigendum dated 22-9-1964, whether any portion of the property conveyed to the appellant was illegally in the possession of the respondents. The single Judge must decide the appeal according to law uninfluenced by the Division Bench's observations on merits, and proceed on the stated basis regarding the administrative order. [Paras 2]Second Appeal remitted to the single Judge for fresh disposal on the stated basis; single Judge to consider possession in light of the sale certificate and corrigendum.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the Division Bench's order dismissing the Second Appeal with costs is set aside and the matter is remitted to the single Judge of the High Court to dispose of the Second Appeal in accordance with law on the basis that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order dated 21-1-1963 is not final and binding; no order as to costs of the appeal. Issues involved: Interpretation of the finality of an order made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in a civil proceeding.Summary:The single Judge referred a question regarding the finality of an order made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the order was not final and binding in the civil proceeding, allowing the Civil Court to determine encroachment on the property. However, the Division Bench erred in not sending the matter back to the single Judge after deciding the question of law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, and directed the single Judge to dispose of the Second Appeal in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the Division Bench's observations on merits. The single Judge was instructed to consider whether any portion of the property conveyed to the appellant was illegally in the possession of the respondents. No costs were awarded for the appeal.