Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. the State and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........(consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949, although it was incumbent upon him to do so before finalization of the scheme, as provided in section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1948. 2. the petition must fail for the simple reason that the ground on which the scheme is now challenged was never put forward by the petitioner in the form of objections which they had the right to prefer either under the provisions of section 19 of the act to respondent no. 3 or under those of section 21 (3) thereof to the settlement officer (respondent no. 2). not having availed of the remedies provided to them under the act itself, they cannot be held entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. 3. the petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. 4. petition dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The sole ground on which the scheme of consolidation of holdings prepared for village Kalianwali in Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar, is challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is that the concerned Consolidation Officer, who figures as respondent No. 3 did not obtain the advice of the village Committee constituted under Rule 4 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, although it was incumbent upon him to do so before finalization of the scheme, as provided in Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1948.

2. The petition must fail for the simple reason that the ground on which the scheme is now challenged was never put forward by the petitioner in the form of objections which they had the right to prefer either under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act to respondent No. 3 or under those of Section 21 (3) thereof to the Settlement Officer (respondent No. 2). Not having availed of the remedies provided to them under the Act itself, they cannot be held entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

4. Petition dismissed.