S N PREMI Vs. ESTATE OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. -
(1.) By filing Review Petition No.13/2007 under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the appellant/applicant seeks review of the Order dated 16.11.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.913/2004 This Petition for review is barred by time and the applicant has filed CM No.573/2007 for condonation of 26 days" delay in filing the Review Petition. Still another CM being CM No. 572/2007 has been filed by the appellant/applicant for grant of stay of the proceedings and has prayed for direction to the respondents to maintain status quo in regard to the demised property. CM No. 574/2007 is an application praying for exemption of dim annexures filed along with the application. The application is allowed subject to just exceptions. The CM stands disposed of. CM No.573/2007 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of 26 days" delay in filing the Review Petition. The Application is supported by an affidavit and it is stated that some time was taken by the appellant/applicant to consult the lawyer and some delay was caused in the office of the counsel resulting in a short delay in filing the Review Petition. The Application which is supported by an affidavit, and particularly keeping in view the fact that there is only 26 days" delay in filing the Review Petition, we condone the delay and proceed to deal the Review Petition on its merits. Consequently, CM No.573/2007 is allowed.
(2.) As already noticed, the appellant/applicant has filed this Review Petition No.13/2007 seeking review of the Order dated 16.11.2006. It is the case of the applicant in this Petition that the land in question is a property bearing No. CB-133 (old No. CB-50), Old Village Abadi, Village Naraina, Ring Road, New Delhi, measuring about 650 yds. Even though a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24.10.1961 culminating in the award dated 9.1.1976, possession of the land was not taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) nor handed over to the Army Authorities for whose benefit the land was acquired. The applicant continued in possession of the land. Another person, namely, Shri Karan Singh Tanwar also had possession of property bearing No. CB-131 (new) in the same place and had filed a Suit bearing no. 643/1985 claiming the relief of permanent injunction. A decree for injunction was passed on 16.1.1998. The proceedings against him had also been taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 1971 by the Estate Officer, Delhi Cantonment and an order of eviction was passed against him. An appeal against the same was dismissed, whereafter Shri Karan Singh Tanwar filed a Writ Petition bearing No. WP (C) 6142/2004 before this Court which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 9.7.2004, against which that person filed an appeal and the said appeal was pending and an interim order was granted in favour of the appellant. It is contended that similarly situated person's appeal being LPA No.676/2004 was admitted and continues to be pending before this Court and he enjoys the benefit of interim Order and as such, the present appeal also could not have been dismissed as they were being heard together for all this time and would amount to discrimination if the Order dated 16.11.2006 is not reviewed. It is also the contention of the applicant that the Writ Petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition bearing No.3709/2002 which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner therein was not in possession of the land. In the subsequent Writ Petition, the contentions raised before the Court related to proceedings before the Estate Officer and Order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 20.9.2004 dismissing the appeal in relation to said proceedings.
(3.) As is evident from the above narrated facts, the applicant prayed for a rehearing of the matter by filing the present Review Petition. The Division Bench had dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) preferred by the appellant vide its Order dated 16.11.2006. The relevant part of the Order reads as under:-
"We find no substance in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants as the issue with regard to the possession which was raised in the writ petitions, which were earlier filed mentioned above in 2002 and were dismissed with cost by the Division Bench, remains the same and the order passed by the Estate Officer and pursuant to thereafter in appeal cannot be reopened. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.