P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. - (1.) Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner therein challenging the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 8.9.2003, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by it on the ground that the order impugned therein was legal, proper and just and the claim for regularization made by the petitioner could not be granted over-riding the stipulated land use of the area in question. When the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal came up, though at the initial stage, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the issue arising for the decision was not identical with the issue arising for decision in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004, on the subsequent day when it came up for admission, the same was got tagged with C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 and connected matters after persuading this Court to issue notice on it. It is apparent from the order dated 29.7.2004 that at that stage, this Court was told that the question that arose for decision was the same as the one arising in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004. On 2.12.2004, this Court finally disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2671 of 2004 and the connected matters by upholding the decision of the High Court and granting time to the appellants therein to remove the constructions put up by them found to be offensive in terms of the relevant legislation. Thereafter, the present Petition for Special Leave to Appeal came up on 25.7.2005 and it was adjourned at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Petition for Special Leave to appeal again came up on 26.7.2005 and it was directed that the matters be placed for hearing on 27.7.2005 specifically directing that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 will also be listed for hearing that day. Ultimately, on 7.9.2005, when this Court took up Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 along with the other matters posted with it, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, but this Court granted leave and disposed of the appeal holding that the question raised was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 and the connected cases decided on 2.12.2004. In that Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, the petitioner had also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2005 seeking to plead certain facts which were neither put forward in the High Court nor urged at the hearing of the Writ Petition in the High Court. For that matter, these facts were not agitated even before the authorities who had rejected the claim of the petitioner for compounding under the relevant statute.
(2.) In the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal which transformed into a Civil appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 3 of 2005 on 23.9.2005 praying for what it called the restoration of the Civil Appeal by recalling the order dated 7.9.2005 disposing of the appeal. The reason put forward was that the learned Counsel for the appellant could not be present when the case was called on for hearing due to the fact that she had to rush to the hospital with a relative of hers for urgent attention and by the time she returned, the matter had been disposed of. Considering that the learned Counsel had not been heard as recorded in the order itself, and for no other reason, we entertained the application I.A. No. 3 of 2005 and issued notice therein by our Order dated 5.1.2006. The application for restoration of the appeal, the appeal and I.A. No. 2 of 2005, have all come up again for hearing and final disposal.
(3.) In the view that the learned Counsel was not heard when we passed the order dated 7.9.2005, we allow I.A. No. 3 of 2003 so as to give the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was reheard with counsel on both sides ably assisting the court at the re-hearing.;