ROOP CHAND versus STATE OF PUNJAB

ROOP CHAND versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Section 42 of the Act does not authorize the State Government to revise an order made by itself or by an officer exercising delegated appellate powers under s. 21(4); such an order is legally the order of the Government. The impugned order setting aside the appellant's right to plots was without jurisdiction and infringed the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

Parties
Petitioner: Roop Chand; Respondent No. 1: State of Punjab; Respondent No. 2: Hari Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 October 1962
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
Writ Petition allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Holdings, Delegation of Powers, Revisional Jurisdiction Under Consolidation Laws, Fundamental Rights Enforcement
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Consolidation of Holdings Delegation of Powers Revisional Jurisdiction Under Consolidation Laws Fundamental Rights Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roop Chand

Petitioner

State of Punjab

Respondent No. 1

Hari Singh

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether State Government can revise an order passed by a delegate officer exercising powers under s. 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'any order passed by any officer under this Act' in s. 42 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether revisional powers under s. 42 include orders made by a delegate under s. 41(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 42 of the Act does not authorize the State Government to revise an order made by itself or by an officer exercising delegated appellate powers under s. 21(4); such an order is legally the order of the Government. The impugned order setting aside the appellant's right to plots was without jurisdiction and infringed the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Writ Petition allowed with costs

Orders

  • Impugned order under s. 42 set aside
  • Petitioner’s right to plots Nos. 635 and 636 restored