- (1.) Heard Sri Bijendra Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant-respondent No. 5 and Sri B.B. Jauhari and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. This is an application praying for review of the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2012 by which order after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of. Respondent No. 5, who had appeared at the time of hearing and was heard, has come up in the application praying for review of the judgment.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners could not have been entertained and their claim was actually barred by principles of res judicata, since the Writ Petition No. 17057/1987 filed by Swam Singh, the father of the petitioner challenging the acquisition was dismissed. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid writ petition, the writ petitioners have also specifically prayed for releasing of the land praying that their lands be excluded from the acquisition and the said prayer having been not granted, shall be deemed to have been rejected and the claim of the petitioners for releasing of the land as raised in the Writ Petition No. 65428/2006 is barred by the principles of res judicata. He further submits that in Writ Petition No. 3055/2005 in which the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice dated 17.12.2004 with other relief's, was dismissed with an observation that petitioner may raise grievance before the competent authority, in view of also the said issue of release of land could not be gone into. It is further submitted that the writ petition was barred by laches and could not have been entertained, since the petitioners have come up in the year 2005 and they have not made any application for releasing of the land at the relevant time. He submits that although section 33 of the U.P. Awas Vikash Parishad Act, 1965 gives power to change the scheme but no prayer within the meaning of section 33 was ever made before the Board or before the Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the direction of this Court issued in another writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, for deciding the representation dated 16th February, 2005 shall not give any right to the petitioners to consider their claim for release of the land. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that several relevant facts which ought to have been disclosed in the writ petition were not disclosed and complete facts were not kept before this Court, hence, that is also a ground for review.
(3.) Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that the writ petition is neither barred by principles of res judicata nor it is barred by principles or laches. It is submitted that all relevant facts were disclosed in the writ petition. It is further submitted that this Court having already issued a direction for deciding the representation dated 16th January, 2005 by which the petitioners' representation for release of the land was directed to be considered, it is too late to contend that the petitioners' claim is barred by limitation or laches.;