Judgment P. K. Banerjee C. J. , S. B. Bhargava, J. ( 1 ) A tell-tale of woo and sufferings due to protracted litigation of an alleged freedom fighter Tamrapatra holder, who claims to have suffered for about five decades in the freedom movement has ultimately terminated in this review petition and application during the hearing of that review petition. The order dt. 3-6-69 was the first and this present order should hopefully be last but one if not last in this series of avoidable litigation. It is desired that Revenue Commissioner of the State of Rajasthan should personally ensure the implementation of the Government order dt 3-6-69 as interpreted by this Court in writ petition, first heard by me in Single Bench and then confirmed by the Division Bench consisting of Shri K. D. Sharma, the then Chief Justice and Shri S. N. Bhargava J. , in special appeal, and which was later on confirmed by the Supreme Court by rejecting the State appeal. ( 2 ) THE misfortune is that while hearing in Single Bench, the State did not provide the requisite assistance and again, when the present direction for hearing the review was issued by the Supreme Court, the State Counsel remained conspicuously absent, in Supreme Court and on 20-9-85 here. The tiny question which should not require more than five minutes the attention of the Revenue Commissioner if he chooses to go to spot and apply his mind or even otherwise, is whether 50 bighas of land proposed to be given to Shri Nandlal Sharma is cultivable where the agricultural produce can be sown and harvested and if any part of it on account of road or nala or the land being uncultivable due to its inherent inferior quality is found then to provide alternative land as a whole or additional for compensating it. ( 3 ) WHAT a pity it is that for solving this small problem, Shri Nandlal Sharma at the age of 75 years has been compelled to enter into series of litigations and representations, writ petition, contempt petition and review petition. ( 3 ) WHAT a pity it is that for solving this small problem, Shri Nandlal Sharma at the age of 75 years has been compelled to enter into series of litigations and representations, writ petition, contempt petition and review petition. Irrespective of the judgment or order which I propose to give hereunder, I would like to place my desire on the record not in the form of the direction but as a piece of advice to enhance social justice that even now without waiting for the outcome of this litigation, the Revenue Commissioner should devote a few minutes to solve the above problem and put big full-stop to this avoidable litigation. ( 4 ) NOW I would proceed to consider the present review petition, the arguments of which have been concluded just now in the court. ( 5 ) BEFORE I proceed to decide the review petition in contempt petition, I would like to decide the application dt. 19th Sept. 1985 of Shri Nandlal Sharma, arguments of which were heard on Sept. 20, 1985, and the order was kept reserved. ( 6 ) I would like to mention the chequered history of the case. ( 7 ) ON Aug. 11, 1982, I have allowed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1278/80 filed by the petitioner-Nandlal Sharma. The operative part of the order in the writ petition reads as under:"the result is, that I allow this writ petition to this limited extent, that the respondents should take active and effective steps to implement the order dt the 3rd June, 1,969 for giving allotment of 50 bighas of unirrigated land in village Bassi to the petitioner and if any impediments and obstruction have been created by third parties then the same should be removed according to law and failing that, the State should consider objectively question of granting alternative land or relief to the petitioner. ""since the respondents have not contested the writ petition by not filing reply, the parties would bear their own costs. " ( 8 ) AGAINST the said judgment and order, an appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench consisting of K. D. Sharma CJ. ""since the respondents have not contested the writ petition by not filing reply, the parties would bear their own costs. " ( 8 ) AGAINST the said judgment and order, an appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench consisting of K. D. Sharma CJ. and S. N. Bhargava J. , confirmed the judgment delivered by me in writ petition (supra) and the operative portion of the judgment reads as under :"in this view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the appellant, i. e. State Govt. , did not comply with the decision of the Committee on the claim of Shri Nandlal placed before it and instead of granting suitable and cultivable land in village Bassi to him for facilitating his settling down as an agriculturist, allotted most unsuitable land to him in village Tonga in direct contravention of the decision of the Committee constituted under Rule 14 of the Aid Rules. Consequently, we are of the view that as the State Govt, has not followed the procedure laid down in R. 14 of the Aid Rules for grant of aid to a political sufferer and has acted contrary to the decision of the Committee constituted under the aforesaid Rules, the single Judge was justified in directing that the appellant i. e. State should take active and effective step to implement the order dt. 3rd June, 1969 for giving allotment of 50 bighas of unirrigated land in village Bassito the petitioner. No fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which in our opinion should be upheld because a political sufferer like Shri Nandlal who had to give up his hundreds of bighas of land on account of activities connected with political movement and had to face imprisonment, detention in jail and long exile from Rajasthan and Punjab on account of actual participation in freedom struggle, should be provided facility for his settling down as an agriculturist as appears to be the intention of the framers of the Aid Rules also. His claim for aid cannot be brushed aside merely because some other most unsuitable land was given to him in village Tonga, which he had to dispose of to clear of his debts, which he incurred in making it cultivable or suitable for agriculture and the cultivation of which was made difficult for him by nefarious activities of the local mischief mongers who left no stone unturned in committing trespass upon the land and in destroying the crops sown by Shri Nandlal. The result is that the special appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. " ( 9 ) NANDLAL then moved D. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 6/1984 in D. B. Special Appeal No. 335/82. In D. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 6/1984, the Division Bench consisting of myself and G. K. Sharma J. , at one stage, the following order was passed on July 16, 1984 :"having heard Shri Nandlal Sharma, petitioner in person and Mrs. Kamla Jain, Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for Shri Balu Ram, Additional Collector, Jaipur, it appears that the principal controversy between the parties is whether the land allotted to the petitioner in compliance of the order of this court is cultivable or not. We feel that before we decide the contempt petition, it is necessary that on the spot study should be made by the Commissioner and a report should be obtained for the same from him. We are inclined to adopt the above course because it is admitted by Mrs. Kamla Jain that the land allotted to the petitioner was never cultivated in the past. It is submitted that it was a pasture land, which has been converted as Siwai chak land for the purpose of allotment to Shri Nand Lal. According to Shri Nand Lal, this land cannot be cultivated and is uncultivable. But this factual assertion is contested by Shri Balu Ram, Additional Collector, Jaipur. It is, therefore, ordered that the Commissioner would proceed on the spot and examine whether the land Khasras Nos. 741 and 747 of village Bassi, allotted to Shri Nand Lal, as per the description given in order dt. 2-3-1984 is cultivable land where agricultural produce can be cultivated. It is, therefore, ordered that the Commissioner would proceed on the spot and examine whether the land Khasras Nos. 741 and 747 of village Bassi, allotted to Shri Nand Lal, as per the description given in order dt. 2-3-1984 is cultivable land where agricultural produce can be cultivated. In case the answer to the above is negative then the Commissioner should also examine and report the feasibility of the other land suggested for allotment by the petitioner. Shri Ramraj Lal Gupta (Retired District and Sessions Judge), Advocate is appointed Commissioner. The report should be submitted within a period of 3 weeks from today. The respondent would arrange for conveyance and would pay Rs. 250/- in addition to the expenses, to the Commissioner. Put up after one month for orders. " ( 10 ) SHRI Ramraj Lal Gupta was appointed as Commissioner by the above order, and then another Division Bench consisting of Kasliwal and Mehta JJ. passed the following order on 5-9-1984 :"learned Additional Government Advocate has moved an application that order may now be given for compliance of the order dt. July 16, 1984 and non-petitioners are prepared to pay amount of Rs. 250/- to the Commissioner within two days and to make arrangement for his conveyance as would be directed by this Court. We heard Mr. Nandlal Sharma in person and Mr. R. R. L. Gupta Commissioner. It is now directed that the non-petitioners would pay Rs. 250/- to the Commissioner, Mr. R. R. L. Gupta on or before Sept, 10, 1984. The Commissioner would go on the spot on Sept. , 16, 1984 at 8. 30 a. m. and the non-petitioners in this regard would make necessary arrangements of conveyance at the residence of the Commissioner on the aforesaid date and time. Mr. Nand Lal Sharma, who is present in person, shall remain present on the spot on Sept. 16, 1984. The case may be listed for admission on Sept. , 24, 1984. " ( 11 ) THEREAFTER, the case was considered on 2-11-1984 and the following order dismissing the contempt petition No. 6/1984 in Special Appeal No. 335/82, was passed by the Division Bench consisting of P. K. Banarjee, C. J. and S. N. Bhargava, J. :"honble the Chief Justice, Honble S. N. Bhargava, J. Mrs. Kamla Jain Addl. Govt. Advocate. " ( 11 ) THEREAFTER, the case was considered on 2-11-1984 and the following order dismissing the contempt petition No. 6/1984 in Special Appeal No. 335/82, was passed by the Division Bench consisting of P. K. Banarjee, C. J. and S. N. Bhargava, J. :"honble the Chief Justice, Honble S. N. Bhargava, J. Mrs. Kamla Jain Addl. Govt. Advocate. The order of the learned single Judge is clear that the petitioner will be allotted 50 Bighas of unirrigated land. From the affidavit it has been made clear the 50 Bighas of un-irrigated was allotted. In the order, itself, it does not appear that the (land) learned single Judge directed that fertile land should be allotted. In that view of the matter, we do not feel that a prima facie case for issue of notice for contempt is made out. The application for contempt has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed and there will be no order as to costs. " ( 12 ) THE present review petition No. 273/1984 is against the order (supra) dated 2-11-1984, filed on 15-11-1984. The review petition came up for consideration on 7-2-1985 before the Division Bench consisting of Kasliwal and Mehta JJ. On 7-2-1985 the following order was passed :"this review application is directed against the order passed on 2-11-1984 by Honble Chief Justice and Honble Justice S. N. Bhargava. Under R. 64 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1952, this review application should be laid before the same Honble Judges. The review application may, therefore, be listed before the bench concerned. " ( 13 ) BEFORE the case could be heard by the division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and S. N. Bhargava, J. , it appears that the applicant-Nandlal Sharma moved an application or made prayer in SLP No. 7523 of 83 which is pending before the Supreme Court having filed by the State of Rajasthan against the earlier order of the Division Bench dt. 1-2-1983 in Special Appeal No. 335/82. This application of Nandlal was in the nature of Civil Misc. Petition No. 13300/85 (In SLP No. 7523/83 ). 1-2-1983 in Special Appeal No. 335/82. This application of Nandlal was in the nature of Civil Misc. Petition No. 13300/85 (In SLP No. 7523/83 ). In this petition, the Supreme Court on 1-4-1985 passed the following order :"the petitioner who has appeared in person has informed us that against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 12-11-1984, in DB Civil Contempt No. 6/84, he has preferred a Review Petition before the High Court, being DB Civil Review Petition No. 273/84, which has not been disposed of early. We, therefore, request the High Court to dispose of that review Petition No. 273/84, if not already disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the receipt of our order. CMP is disposed of accordingly. " ( 14 ) ON 12-8-1985, Nandlal filed civil Contempt Petition No. 35738/85 before the Supreme Court. A copy of which has been placed on record of this Review Petition by the applicant. ( 15 ) THEREAFTER, on 26-8-1985, the following order in Civil Misc. Petition No. 35738/85 (In SLP No. 7523/83) was passed by the Supreme Court:"on 1-4-1985 this Court passed an order requesting the High Court to dispose of Review Petition No. 273/84 expeditiously preferably within four months from the receipt of that Order of ours. It seems that the review petition has not yet been disposed of. We are told that initially the matter was heard by Justice Guman Mal Lodha (W. P. 1278/80 Nand Lal Sharma v. State and ors ). We request the learned Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court to place the Review Petition before the same learned Judge and see to it that the review petition should be disposed of within two months from the date of the receipt of this order by that Court. The CMP is disposed of accordingly. " ( 16 ) AFTER the orders of the Supreme Court were received by this Court on 2-9-1985, on 5-9-1985 the Chief Justice of this Court referred the matter to me for necessary action as per the orders of the Supreme Court. The CMP is disposed of accordingly. " ( 16 ) AFTER the orders of the Supreme Court were received by this Court on 2-9-1985, on 5-9-1985 the Chief Justice of this Court referred the matter to me for necessary action as per the orders of the Supreme Court. Then the case was listed before me on 6-9-1985, when it was directed that the Advocate General of the State should be summoned to assist the Court to decide, whether in view of the orders of the Supreme Court a single Judge can hear the review petition against the order of the Division Bench. ( 17 ) THEN this matter came up for consideration on 17-9-1985 when the Advocate General did not appear to assist the Court but prayed for time through Shri O. P. Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate. ( 18 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the following order was passed on 17-9-1985 :"mr. Sharma prays for time of two weeks. Honble the Supreme Court has directed on 26-8-1985 that review petition should be decided within two months. In view of this, it is not possible to grant such a long time. Shri Sharma submits that this case would be argued by the Advocate-General personally in view of the importance of the matter. Hence a weeks time is allowed with a specific understanding that no adjournment would be granted. Put up after a week as prayed. " ( 19 ) SHRI Nandlal Sharma has moved another application mentioning that the order which was dictated on 17-9-1985 has not been correctly recorded. According to him, the direction was given for payment of Rs. 5 lacs, to the State and this part of the order has not been recorded. ( 20 ) THE background of the above prayer of Shri Nandlal appears to be his application dt. 16-9-1985 in which he mentioned that the Prime Minister has for the second time on 13-2-1964 sent a written order to the Rajasthan Government for allotting 50 bighas of land to the petitioner and for respecting the order of the judiciary, but in reply to it, false reply has been sent to the Prime Minister that the petitioner has been allotted 50 bighas of land. It was further mentioned that in July, 1985, the Chief Minister-Harideo Joshi in his own signatures has reprimanded the Collector Jaipur, Shri J. N. Gaur through Chief Secretary and asked his explanation and since no reply has been given, a reminder has been sent in aug. 1985. It was then submitted that the compliance of the orders of this Court should be made, otherwise the punishment should be given to the contemners. Then it was prayed that Rs. 5 lacs should be paid in the account of the applicant, of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, and if by 1-10-85 the State fails to hand over possession of 50 bighas of land than this amount should be paid to the petitioner. It was also prayed that Shri J. N. Gaur, the Collector and Shri Baluram, Additional Collector, Jaipur should be severely punished. ( 21 ) WHILE the main review petition along with application dt. 16-9-85 was yet pending for decision, the applicant Nandlal Sharma has moved the application dated 19-9-85. On the application dt 19-9-85, the arguments were heard on 20-9-1985. In spite of the great importance of the matter and the facts and circumstances of the case, unfortunately the State did not choose to appear on 20-9-1985 when the applicant-Nandlal argued the case, at length. ( 22 ) SHRI Nandlal Sharma during the arguments submitted that though basically the case was adjourned yet before granting adjournment a condition was placed on the State to deposit Rs. 5 lacs but this condition has not been taken down in the dictation of the order and, therefore, it is missing from the order dt. 17-9-1985. Shri Nandlal Sharma has given an affidavit in support of the above. ( 23 ) UNFORTUNATELY, Shri Nandlal Sharma after arguing the above for sometime, diverted his focus against the administration of the Rajasthan High Court with special derogatory observations against the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee. This, he did by reading a cyclostyle paper which he had placed on record earlier in office along with his affidavit. ( 24 ) IT also appears that even in the cyclostyled copy of the Civil Contempt Petition No. 35738/85 filed before the Supreme Court, the applicant has used derogatory language against the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee at several places. ( 24 ) IT also appears that even in the cyclostyled copy of the Civil Contempt Petition No. 35738/85 filed before the Supreme Court, the applicant has used derogatory language against the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee at several places. ( 25 ) IT is unfortunate that an applicant who, according to his own version, has spent several years in fighting freedom movement against the Britishers and in obtaining freedom of this country and the Constitution, by using such a derogatory language, tried to undermine the decorum and majesty of the Court of Law. ( 26 ) IN my opinion, it was neither necessary nor proper to narrate the history of what happened in this Court when a reference was made on the sad occasion of death of Shri P. R. Mridul, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and former Judge of the Bombay High Court. I would not permit any controversy to be raised on the judicial forum in this respect, as to whether there was any propriety of the Registry of the Court locking Court room No. 1 and non-co-operating in the reference as argued by Nandlal. In my opinion, that was within domestic internal domain of administration of the High Court, for which appropriate action could have been and should have been taken by the Chief Justice, after fixing the responsibility, but it cannot be made subject-matter of judicial controversy. It would be for the Chief Justice to get an enquiry conducted and take punitive, preventive and remedial action, against erring officers of the Registry who got the Court room No. 1 locked up, withdrew the staff and boycotted the solemn reference, due to which the Court is confronted with such humiliating criticism of its authority, dignity and sanctity, even now in collateral proceeding which is seemingly necessary to restore the authority and dignity of the High Court which suddenly collapsed and was crushed due to this ugly incident, in case the Chief Justice feels alike but I cannot issue any directions for it. ( 27 ) SHRI Nandlal Sharma also tried to humiliate and undermine this Court by arguing that all the Judges should resign in the above situation when they were not permitted to make reference in the Court room No. 1 in spite of their joint unanimous written decision, and they have got no self-respect as in spite of the above insult done by the Registry they are functioning in the Court. Here again, 1 cannot resist temptation of mentioning that this unfortunate uninvited advice by a litigant who is only interested in getting either land from the Government or compensation of Rs. five lacs as he now puts it, lacks relevancy. Moreover, concepts of "self-respect" are relative. ( 28 ) THE self-respect cannot be ventilated or exhibited by a mass resignation due to such ill-advised or inadvertent mistake of the Registry as we have got no reason to think that anyone wanted to either insult or annoy all the Judges of this Court in the matter of the Pushpraj Mriduls reference, although it resulted in it In any case, it would be imprudent to enter into this controversy in this case where it is wholly irrelevant and extraneous. ( 29 ) MOREOVER, so far as this case is concerned, any attempt to bring home this matter only shows that irrelevant and extraneous arguments are being made to create prejudice against and undermine the status and dignity of the Chief Justice. In order to put the record straight, it may be clarified that the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee was not in Rajasthan and obviously closing of the Court room No. 1 for not permitting the reference to be made and the withdrawal of the Registry from the reference, which undoubtedly was darkest and blackest act in judicial history of Rajasthan, howsoever ill-advised and unfortunate it may be, had nothing to do with the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and, therefore, dragging him in this controversy cannot be appreciated. ( 30 ) NOW coming to the principal controversy about the dictation of the order having not been taken down by the stenographer of the Court, I must mention that this allegation is wholly incorrect. No dictation was given mentioning that the petitioner should be paid rupees 5 lacs. ( 30 ) NOW coming to the principal controversy about the dictation of the order having not been taken down by the stenographer of the Court, I must mention that this allegation is wholly incorrect. No dictation was given mentioning that the petitioner should be paid rupees 5 lacs. The order would show that all that was ordered was adjournment and the request was for two weeks time as Advocate-General was not available but only a weeks time was granted. The order was dictated in the presence of Nandlal and the Deputy Government Advocate both of whom understand English language very well. Shri Nandlal left the chamber only after the dictation was complete and it is not a case of any reserved order being pronounced, later on. ( 31 ) THE above narration of the history of the case would also reveal that the question to be considered by the Court so far is whether I can hear the review petition sitting in single Bench against the order of the Division Bench and it is only when that point is decided in favour of Nandlal than I would apply my mind to the question whether, the order of the Division Bench mentioning that my earlier order which is original order and which was passed in the writ petition, ever contemplated the direction of giving 50 bighas of fertile land. Prima facie, no one can be more pious than Pope, himself and, therefore, whatever the language of the original order which has been extracted above, is to be interpreted if at all it requires any clasification. I would deal with that controversy. As to what is the meaning of 50 bighas of un-irrigated land used in the judgment of Single Bench in writ petition, which has been interpreted as cultivable land by the use of phrase cultivable in the judgment of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 335/82. ( 32 ) SO far as the application dt. 19-9-1985 is concerned, I want to make it clear that the Court never dictated that rupees 5 lacks should either be deposited or paid to the applicant-Nandlal. ( 32 ) SO far as the application dt. 19-9-1985 is concerned, I want to make it clear that the Court never dictated that rupees 5 lacks should either be deposited or paid to the applicant-Nandlal. It appears that since Shri Sharma Nand Lal prayed for it during the arguments and the Deputy Government Advocate did not argue the case but only prayed for the adjournment and the Court was reluctant to grant long adjournment in view of the order of the Supreme Court, Nandlal assumed certain things in his favour due to his own obsession. ( 33 ) BEFORE parting with this order on the application dt. 19-9-1985,1 must mention that the salutary practice of judicial Courts is that the judgment or order is one which is dictated and signed During the course of the arguments where different parties put up their view points, in certain matters, the Court may, while hearing, put contentions of one party to the other to have reactions or some times even try to have conciliation or compromise, but those can neither be treated as orders of the Court nor judgments or directions. ( 34 ) THE present one is a case where no direction was ever given to make payment of rupees five lacs. Neither review petition nor the contempt petition from whose dismissal the review petition has been filed, had any prayer of making payment of rupees five lacs. The review can only be of the order which was passed by the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and S. N. Bhargava J. , holding that the contempt is not made out as there was no order for giving irrigated or fertile land and the State has given 50 bighas of land. In my considered opinion, the question of making any payment whatsoever of rupees five lacs or otherwise, is beyond the scope of consideration in this review petition and since no such direction was given on 17-9-1985, the application of Nandlal Sharma, dt. 19-9-1985 cannot be accepted. ( 35 ) CONSEQUENTLY the application dt. 19-9-1985 is rejected. ( 36 ) NOW I proceed to consider the review petition on its merits. 19-9-1985 cannot be accepted. ( 35 ) CONSEQUENTLY the application dt. 19-9-1985 is rejected. ( 36 ) NOW I proceed to consider the review petition on its merits. The important constitutional aspect of which consists of competency of the Single Bench to hear the review of the order of the Division Bench, in pursuance of the orders of the Apex Court and after the Chief Justice of this Court has sent the order of the Supreme Court with a notice that as per the Supreme Court, the review petition be heard by me. On 5-9-1985, the Chief Justice interpreted the order of the Supreme Court to authorise me sitting in Single Bench to hear the review petition against the order of the two Judges including the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee, himself. I had my own doubts about order dt. 5-9-1985 and, therefore, I directed to issue notice to the Advocate-General, Rajasthan. ( 37 ) NOW the important question which arises for consideration is, whether, sitting in single Bench I should hear the review petition against the order of the Division Bench. ( 38 ) SHRI N. L Jain, the learned Advocate General, has submitted that no one is above the law and the Supreme Court also cannot be treated as having any powers above the law of the land. It was argued that if it would have been pointed out to the Supreme Court, that earlier judgment was of the Division Bench, probably their Lordships of the Supreme Court might have, itself, sent it to the Division Bench. ( 39 ) THE learned Advocate-General prayed that I should refuse to hear the review petition or should make a reference to the Supreme Court for clarification, or grant time so that the State can now pray to the Supreme Court for review of its order. ( 40 ) SHRI Nandlal Sharma, the applicant, who has appeared in person, has submitted that the Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that the order which was sought to be made, was of the Division Bench and had consciously passed the order for hearing the review petition by me in the single Bench making it clear that the original order was of the single Judge. ( 41 ) SHRI Nandlal invited my attention to the provisions of Arts. ( 41 ) SHRI Nandlal invited my attention to the provisions of Arts. 140 to 144 of the Constitution of India, and submitted that the Supreme Court is the Supreme and Apex, and this Court cannot challenge the validity or the correctness or propriety of the orders of the Supreme Court. ( 42 ) SHRI Nandlal submitted that during the Constituent Assembly Debate, Dr. Ambedkar and other members of the Constituent Assembly emphasised that the power of the Supreme Court under Arts. 32,136 to 144 and the powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India are put at the highest pedestal of the judicial world as a whole. ( 43 ) SHRI Nandlal said that, what the Constituent Assembly and the founding fathers intended, cannot be undone by this Court by challenging the authority of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court being the Apex Court, and the law declared by the Supreme Court being binding to all throughout the country including all the Courts, Shri Nandlal argued that it is unconceivable that any challenge can be made to the wisdom or the propriety or correctness or validity of the orders of the Supreme Court. ( 44 ) SHRI Nandlal made mention of certain matters which according to me, are irrelevant and, therefore, I would not mention them in my this judgment. ( 45 ) SHRI Nandlal then argued that on merits when the judgment was given by the Division Bench, the Additional Government Advocate did not point out that on the earlier date, the Government, itself, has made a request to permit it to deposit the amount as per the Commissioners fees of Ramraj Lal Gupta appointed by the Court The Additional Govt. Advocate did not point out that such a report has been received on record and requires perusal. Shri Nandlal submitted that it was under this ignorance and a serious error which is apparent on the face of record, by a mere perusal of earlier order sheet in which Ramrajlal Gupta, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner and further when various Judges sitting in Division Bench passed the orders for compliance of the order regarding Commissioners inspection, that the impugned order under review was passed. ( 46 ) SHRI Nandlal then pointed out that the Division Bench which confirmed the judgment of the single Bench in the main writ petition made it clear that the land should be agricultural land and productive, it should be suitable and cultivable land so that Nandlal can settle down as an agriculturist. Shri Nandlal read the portion of the judgment of the Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Shri R. D. Sharma and Shri S. N. Bhargava J. , who upheld my judgment of single Bench in the writ petition. Shri Nandial then submitted that he is a freedom fighter and Tamrapatra holder and Receiver of the titles and award of the President of India and he has come for seeking justice in an age, there is emphasis for social justice and substantial justice and, therefore, this Court should not enter into the technicalities and legal juggleries which are being resorted to for ousting him and for non-compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court. Shri Sharma submitted that social and substantial justice requires that once the judgment was given by this Court which has been upheld by the Division Bench in the main writ petition, and the special appeal filed by the State has been dismissed then the State which is committed to justice, social, economic and political, should come forward to implement that judgment. ( 47 ) SHRI Nandlal submitted that the approach of the State to put impediments by legal technicalities cannot be appreciated more so when their Lordships of the Supreme Court not once but three times were seized of the matter, and every time decided it in favour of the applicant-Nandlal; firstly, by rejecting special appeal of the State and confirming the judgment of the Division Bench which in terms confirmed my judgment of the single Bench in writ petition, secondly, when they directed this Court to decide the review petition within four months which was never complied with by this Court, and thirdly, when the Supreme Court, in terms, made the order that the Chief Justice of this Court is requested to place it before G. M. Lodha J. , for disposal. ( 48 ) SHRI Nandlal submitted that for getting his due as freedom fighter he has been agitating in the Courts and various departments from the year 1933 onwards and throughout this period he has been thrown pole to piller and piller to pole. It was unfortunate that the State wedded to socialism democracy and which is committed to respect the freedom fighters on account of whose sacrifices the freedom of this country has reached to the people, is opposing at every stage of his effort to get justice to him. ( 49 ) SHRI Nandlal then ultimately submitted that if this Court cannot do justice, he would find out his ways and means to get justice because obtaining justice is his constitutional, legal and fundamental and birth right and nobody can deprive him of that. ( 50 ) SHRI N. L Jain, the learned Advocate General insisted and opposed the above facets of the submissions of Shri Nandlal, and submitted that this court has got no jurisdiction to hear the review petition because the review sought is of the judgment of the Division Bench in contempt petition. Shri N. L. Jain further submitted that the applicant, Nandlal Sharma should be prosecuted as he has given a false affidavit that this Court has passed an order on 17-9-1985 for the payment of amount of Rs. five lacs to be given to him, and further that, Nandlal should be held guilty for committing contempt of Court because he has misled about the orders of this Court. ( 51 ) SHRI N. L. Jain then submitted that even on merits of the this case, there is no good case because what the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and Shri S. N. Bhargava J. , has said is that there was no order of giving of fertile land and this is borne out by the judgment of the single Bench in the main writ petition which was passed by them. ( 52 ) WHEN the attention of Advocate General was invited to the various orders of the Division Bench in which Ramrajlal Gupta Advocate was appointed as Commissioner, and the Government, itself, took time to pay the amount of fees to the Commissioner duly appointed by this court, and further there was direction that the Commissioner would proceed on the spot and find out the land which can be allotted to Nandlal and examine whether the land is cultivable where agricultural produce can be cultivated, is correct or not, then Shri Jain replied that it may be so, but it would in no way affect the validity of the order of the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and Shri S. N. Bljargava J. , because Nandlal was himself absent on that day and further because that order only states that the judgment was for granting unirrigated land, and the Division Bench only noted that part of the judgment and held that no contempt proceedings can be taken. ( 53 ) SHRI Nandlal Sharma then submitted that the hearing of the petition by Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and Shri S. N. Bhargava J. took place on 1-11-1984 and the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31st Oct. , 1984 and it was expected that there was holiday and, therefore, he did not come to the Court, being in National Mourning. ( 54 ) I have given a very serious and thoughtful consideration to the various facets of the controversy raised by the Advocate General and the contentions of Shri Nandlal Sharma in this respect. Unfortunately the counsel representing the State was not present before the Supreme Court when the direction for hearing the review petition by me was passed Again, even after this order was passed, no effort was made by the State before the Supreme Court to move the review petition for getting it reviewed, if the State was of the opinion that the order passed in the absence of his counsel suffers from serious infirmity of law on account of which the review can be made. ( 55 ) INITIALLY, I had my own doubts whether I should hear this review petition sitting in single Bench. ( 55 ) INITIALLY, I had my own doubts whether I should hear this review petition sitting in single Bench. Technically the review petition of the judgment of the Division Bench should be heard, by the Division Bench only. However, the Constitution of this Country and particularly, the provisions of Arts. 141 to 144 provide to Supreme Court the privilege and so also the duty, for interpreting the law including the Constitution, by the Institution of Judges sitting in the Apex Court. It would be difficult for this Court to guess, probe, adjudicate and decide the wisdom of any order passed by the Apex Court. It is also embarrassing for this Court to sit in judgment over the correctness and validity of the specific order passed by the Supreme Court. More so when the matter has gone repeatedly before the Supreme Court and this was third time when the Supreme Court was considering this matter. I am, therefore, of the view that no one can be more pious than the Pope, himself, and, therefore, in all humility as per the provisions of Arts. 141 to 144 of the Constitution, I must respect the direction of the Supreme Court both, in letter and spirit. Any demur or protest against that should be made in constitutional matter by review petition which could have been and should have been moved by now but which has not been done in the instant matter, so far, I am not inclined nor persuaded to accept the prayer that now the State should be allowed to move application because that would result in indirectly flouting the orders of the Supreme Court which has directed to decide the case within two months. It should be noticed that earlier direction was for deciding this review petition within 4 months and could not be obeyed for the reasons which are not known to me, and for which I am not competent to make any comments. ( 56 ) I would, therefore, respect the directions of the Supreme court which has been given in my name in person and it has been interpreted by the Chief Justice of this Court also to be so. ( 56 ) I would, therefore, respect the directions of the Supreme court which has been given in my name in person and it has been interpreted by the Chief Justice of this Court also to be so. I, therefore, hold that the direction given by the Supreme Court authorising me, empowers me to make competent to hear this review petition and decide it, as the rules or procedure can never override substantial justice and the custodian of the social justice is the Supreme Court and no legislature so far as making the rules is concerned. ( 57 ) REGARDING hearing of the review petition by single Bench or DB it only falls in the categories of procedural laws and, therefore, if the Supreme Court in its wisdom directed me to hear this review petition I cannot shirk the constitutional responsibility on any pretext, whatsoever. I, would therefore, decide this review petition which I have heard along with this objection. ( 58 ) NOW coming to the merits, there is no doubt that the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and Shri S. N. Bhargava J. , was not apprised of the historical events which are twofold as per orders-sheets dt. 16-7-1984 passed by the Division Bench consisting of myself and G. R. Sharma, J. , wherein the appointment of Commissioner was made; another order passed by Dr. K. S. Sidhu and G. K. Sharma JJ. , where they took exception to the non-co-operation of the State and non-compliance of the earlier order dt. 16-7-1984, and further order dt. 6-9-84 passed by M. M. Kasliwal and D. L Mehta JJ. , wherein the prayer of Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mrs. Kamla Jain by moving an application for giving an order for non-compliance of the order dt. 16-7-1984 by paying Rs. 250/- to the Commissioner and to make arrangement for his conveyance, was accepted. Mrs. Jain also stated that the State would also be allowed time for it. A direction was given by the Division Bench on 5-9-1984 that this prayer made by Mrs. Kamla Jain is accepted and now the Commissioner would go on the spot on Sept. . 16, 1984 and the non-petitioner would make necessary arrangements of conveyance at the residence of the Commissioner on the aforesaid date and time, and further Nandlal was directed to remain present on the aforesaid date. Kamla Jain is accepted and now the Commissioner would go on the spot on Sept. . 16, 1984 and the non-petitioner would make necessary arrangements of conveyance at the residence of the Commissioner on the aforesaid date and time, and further Nandlal was directed to remain present on the aforesaid date. ( 59 ) AFTER this order was complied with and the report was submitted which is on record, the matter came up before the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee and Shri S. , N. Bhargava J. , on 2-11-1984 and Nandlal Sharma was absent on that day but Mrs. Kamla Jain was present. ( 60 ) UNFORTUNATELY all these orders and the report of the Commissioner was not brought to the notice of the Judges on 2-11 -1984 which normally should have been done more so, when the Addl. Govt. Advocate was the same who appeared on 5-9-1984 earlier. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that without looking to the report of the Commissioner and earlier orders, order dt. 2-11-1984 suffers from serious infirmities and which falls in the classification and category of the error apparent on the face of record. ( 61 ) IT is true that neither the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Shri S. N. Bhargava J. , were taken into the record in the form of the report of the Commissioner nor they were apprised of the earlier orders and, therefore, this order has been committed innocuously inadvertently and unintentionally. But that would certainly vitiate the order dt. 2-11-1984. I would, therefore, not go into the question, whether the order mentioning that no contempt notice should be given, would, in the ultimate analysis, be correct or not, because after perusing the report of the Commissioner and hearing the parties, the Court may initiate the proceedings or reject the prayer but this question which is left open. I would also not like to comment at this stage to the meaning of the unirrigated land used in the judgment of the single Bench in the main writ petition and the judgment of the Division Bench in special appeal using the phrase, agricultural land productive, suitable for cultivation where Shri Nandlal can settle down as an agriculturist, so as to mean that the Government by allotting some land which is not cultivable land according to Nandlal, has complied with the order. The unirrigated land need not mean uncultivable land. The emphasis of Nandlal in the application is that it is uncultivable land which is not productive where he cannot settle down as an agriculturist and which is not suitable for cultivation. These are matters which are left open again. ( 62 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the review petition is accepted and the order dt. 2-11-1984 is set aside. ( 63 ) THE Supreme Court has directed me to decide the review petition, only and so also the Chief Justice of this Court by this order dt. 5-9-1985 has sent before me the review petition only. Consequence of the above order would be that now the contempt petition which has been considered by the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Shri S. N. Bhargava, J. , earlier, and in which the report of the Commissioner is to be considered by the Division Bench, would be laid by the registry before the Division Bench. The constitution of the Division Bench would be done after obtaining the direction of the Chief Justice of this Court. In view of the spirit of the orders of the Supreme Court, it is further directed that this may be done at an early date. Copy of this judgment be sent to Supreme Court. ( 64 ) SO far as the prayer of the learned Advocate-General regarding the prosecution of Nandlal Sharma for perjury and contempt is concerned no formal application has been moved so far. Looking to the history of the case and various phases in which the petitioner has been compelled to undergo litigation in spite of the order of the Government from time to time, and various highest dignitories and the Government; for forcing him to file writ petition then again the State had gone into appeal up to the Supreme Court and now the matter again having gone to the Supreme Court twice, the question of prosecution or contempt against the applicant-Nandlal should not be rightly considered unless there is a serious attempt by the State by moving formal application giving facts and circumstances warranting it. In my opinion, though I have rejected the prayer of Nandlal in the earlier part of my order and made it express that no order was passed by this Court for payment of Rs. In my opinion, though I have rejected the prayer of Nandlal in the earlier part of my order and made it express that no order was passed by this Court for payment of Rs. five lacs yet I feel that it is not a fit case where the interest of justice require that any prosecution should be made or contempt notice should be given to him. In the earlier part of the order I have already held that though no such order was given but since Nandlal Sharma was insisting on it he might have published on account of his own obsession but for that it would not be in the interest of justice to launch any prosecution or issue a notice of contempt moreso when the earlier order of this court which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court is yet under consideration in contempt matter against the State functioneries. It is a case where the persons who have yet to purge themselves from the contempt in the contempt proceedings which are pending though, no admission has been made so far; are praying that the applicant Nandlal who has prayed for punishment of contempt of Court against the officers of the State Government, should be punished for contempt. ( 65 ) I am of the opinion that no such proceedings are warranted and I feel that making an oral request itself shows that the effort itself is half-hearted and lacks seriousness, which should not be there in such matters. ( 66 ) IN the result, this review petition is accepted as indicated above without any order as to costs. Order accordingly.