Order Delay condoned. 2. Application for personal hearing is rejected. 3. We have perused the review petition and the connected record. The casual and irresponsible manner in which the review petition has been filed is self evident. The grounds in the review petition and in the special leave petition are verbatim the same even to the extent of the mistakes. In the grounds of special leave petition, there are two paragraphs marked “K” and in the grounds of the review petition also, there are two paragraphs marked “K” 11. The following tabular state­ment demonstrates what we have said above: (A) Because the High (A) Because the High Court and the Dy. Court and the Dy. Director of the Con- Director of the Con- soli­dation lost sight of soli­dation lost sight of the glaring position of the glaring position of of law that the order law that the order passed by the Settle- passed by the Settle- ment Officer Consoli- ment Officer Consoli- dation on 2.12.1995, dation on 2.12.1995, after making spot after making spot inspection and appre- inspection and appre- ciation of all the docu- ciation of all the docu- ments and circum­stances ments and circum­- and facts of the case stances and facts of the attained finality under case attained finality Section 21(2) of the under Section 21(2) C.H. Act, the said of the C.H. Act, the Settlement Officer said Settlement Officer Consolidation was the Consolidation was the Court of first appeal Court of first appeal and as such its decision and as such its decision was final in so far as was final in so far as the facts of the case the facts of the case were concerned. were concerned. (B) Because the High  (B) Because the High Court and Dy. Director Court and Dy. Director of Consolidation failed Consolidation failed to appreciate that the to appreciate that the powers of the revisional powers of the revisional court under Section 48 court under Section 48 of the C.H. Act are of the C.H. Act are very limited restricted very limited restricted and are not the and are not the unfettered powers to unfettered powers to upset the orders of the upset the orders of the Settlement Officer on Settlement Officer on the questions of fact, the question of fact, which order has which order has          attained finality. attained finality. (C) Because the Dy. (C) Because the Dy. attained finality. (C) Because the Dy. (C) Because the Dy. Director of Consoli- Director of Consoli- dation has erred gravely dation has erred gravely in not keeping in mind in not keeping in mind the provision of Section the provision of Section 19(f) of the U.P.C.H. 19(f) of the U.P.C.H. Act which makes it Act which makes it necessary for the allot- necessary for the allot-ment of the same chak ment of the same chak to the tenureholder to the tenureholder wherein his own source wherein his own source of irrigation is installed. of irrigation is installed. (D) Because the order (D) Because the order passed by the Settle- passed by the Settle-ment Officer Consoli-­ ment Officer Consoli-dation is final and bind- dation is final and binding between the binding between the parties. parties. (E) Because the Dy. (E) Because the Dy. Director of Consolida- Director of Consolida-tion has acted without tion has acted without jurisdiction in vertually jurisdiction in vertually axing the order of the axing the order of the Settlement Officer Con- Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was solidation, which was passed after apprecia- passed after apprecia- tion of all the facts. tion of all the facts. (F) Because as a result (F) Because as a result of the order of the Dy. of the order of the Dy. Director of Consolida- Director of Consolida-tion the tubewell of the tion the tubewell of the petitioner rendered petitioner rendered useless. useless. (G) Because the area (G) Because the area left along side the tube- left along side the tube-well is not capable of well is not capable of being cultivated. being cultivated. (H) Because the res- (H) Because the res-pondents No. 3 to 6 pondents No. 3 to 6 already had lands in already had lands in plot No. 39, there was plot No. 39, there was no justification in no justification in allotting them more allotting them more areas in plot No. 39. areas in plot No. 39. being cultivated. (H) Because the res- (H) Because the res-pondents No. 3 to 6 pondents No. 3 to 6 already had lands in already had lands in plot No. 39, there was plot No. 39, there was no justification in no justification in allotting them more allotting them more areas in plot No. 39. areas in plot No. 39. (I) Because as a result (I) Because as a result of proceedings under of proceedings under the said C.H. Act, the the said C.H. Act, the areas of lands belong- areas of lands belong-ing to the present ing to the present petitioners have been petitioners have been unconsolidated and unconsolidated and scattered, and the very scattered, and the very spirit for initiating the spirit for initiating the consolidation of consolidation of holdings proceedings holdings proceedings have been thrown to have been thrown to winds. The present winds. The present petitioner has been petitioner has been allocated chaks by the allocated chaks by the Dy. Director of Con- Dy. Director of Con-solidation at far away solidation at far away from the other chaks, from the other chaks, e.g. the chak No. 98 e.g. the chak No. 98 is far away from the is far away from the abadi of the petitioner, abadi of the petitioner, not only this, it has no not only this, it has no source of irrigation, source of irrigation, besides the land there- besides the land thereof of is of inferior quality, is of inferior quality, and and the Dy. Director the Dy. Director of of Consolidation has Consolidation has not not adverted himself to adverted himself to this this glaring fact. glaring fact. (J) Because the order (J) Because the order of the Dy. Director of of the Dy. Director of Consolidation is sheer Consolidation is sheer abuse of the process abuse of the process of the court. of the court. (K) Because the im- (K) Because the im- pugned order of the pugned order of the High Court as well as High Court as well as that of the Dy. Direc- that of the Dy. Direc- tor of Consolidation tor of Consolidation have justice. have occasioned failure of jus­tice. of the court. (K) Because the im- (K) Because the im- pugned order of the pugned order of the High Court as well as High Court as well as that of the Dy. Direc- that of the Dy. Direc- tor of Consolidation tor of Consolidation have justice. have occasioned failure of jus­tice. (K) Because the High (K) Because the High Court has not given a Court has not given a serious thought to the serious thought to the legality of the order of legality of the order of the Dy. Director of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated Consolidation dated 30.8.1996. 30.8.1996. (L) Because the order (L) Because the order of the High Court as of the High Court as well as the Dy. Direc- well as the Dy. Direc- tor of Consolidation tor of Consolidation dated 30.8.1996 are dated 30.8.1996 are liable to be set aside. liable to be set aside. 4. Even in the other paragraphs of the review petition, there is only verbatim reproduction of the corresponding paragraphs from the spe­cial leave petition. 5. We view this with concern and deprecate the casual and irresponsi­ble manner of filing such review petitions which unnecessarily waste the time of the Court. No existence of an error, much less error apparent on the face of the order, while dismissing the SLP, has even been alleged, let alone demonstrated in the review petition. The filing of the review petition is an abuse of the process of this Court. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed with Rs. 5,000/- as costs, which amount shall be recovered under Rules. (H.K.D.) Review petition dismissed. ********** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Chidda Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1998(5) Supreme 260 : AIR 1998 SC 2881 : (1998) 3 SCC 441 : JT 1998(2) SC 227 : 1998(2) Scale 108 : 1998(II) AD (SC) 427 00038