- (1.) These applications have been preferred under Order XVIII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules) against the order of the Registrar dated 28.8.2012, alleging that the applications under Order XVIII Rule 5 of the Rules lodging the applications for clarification/modification of the Judgment dated 11.1.2012 of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2012 cannot be sustained in law. Applications for clarification/modification were filed on 21.2.12 seeking the following reliefs: a) Clarify/modify the observations contained in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Judgment dated 11.1.2012 in view of the Notifications being produced by the Applicant herein along with the present application specially Notification dated 20.9.1965 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960; b) Clarify/modify operative directions in the Judgment dated 11.1.2012 by which it has been held that the Gwalior Development Authority did not have authority or power to execute the lease in favour of the applicant herein; c) Direct the Appellant to produce before this Hon'ble Court the official records in respect of Scheme 2-B framed by the then Gwalior Improvement Trust including the Notifications and orders issued by the State Government in respect thereto photocopies of some of which are being produced along with the present applications; and d) Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." Applications were rejected holding those applications filed would amount to seeking review of the Judgment and order passed by this Court on 11.1.2012. It was noticed that on the pretext of application for clarification/modification, applicant, in fact, sought nothing but recalling of the Judgment and order dated 11.1.2012 and substitution of the directions contained therein which, according to the Registrar, would amount to a prayer for reviewing the Judgment. Applications were, therefore, rejected placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Urban and others, 2000 7 SCC 296.
(2.) Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh had suppressed various documents which had substantial bearing on the outcome of the appeals. According to the learned senior counsel the following are some of the documents which were suppressed from this Court: i) "Gazette Notification dated 27th September, 1963 formulating Housing Scheme under Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (Act of 1960). ii) Gazette Notification dated 4th October, 1963 for Housing Schemes iii) Details of the Acquisition of land and structure of village Ghospura and Mehra (Annexure R-1/3) iv) Gazette Notification under Section 52(1)(s) of the Act of 1960 sanctioning the Scheme"
(3.) Learned senior counsel submitted that the only argument urged before the Bench was that since the property in question was Government land which had not been transferred by it to Gwalior Development Authority, the authority could not have dealt with such land by executing a lease which had been in favour of the applicants. Learned senior counsel submitted that various statements made by the State were couched with malice, fraud and material suppression of facts. Consequently, it was stated that the Registrar should have entertained the applications for modification/clarification and were wrongly lodged.;