Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS review application has been filed for review of judgment and order dated 23.3.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U.P. and others, to the extent of directives given "petitioners as well as State -respondents are directed to ensure return back of the property in question to the private respondents forthwith." This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U.P. and others, after calling for the record qua auction proceedings, which had been held, found that the said auction proceedings were nothing but an outcome of fraud and manipulation, passed the judgment and order under review, directing the State -respondents as well as petitioner to return back the property to private respondents forthwith. Against the said judgment. Special Leave to Appeal No. 83165 of 2006 had been filed before Hon'ble Apex Court by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and the Hon'ble Apex Court upon hearing the Counsel for the parties has issued notice limited to the question of refund and interim stay of the direction for deposit of costs has been passed. The order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court is being quoted below: Upon hearing Counsel the Court made following: ORDER Issued limited to the question of refund. Mr. S.R. Setia, learned Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 4, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said respondent No. 4 states that it shall be indicated in the counter -affidavit to be filed as to why the refund as claimed shall not be granted. Issue notice to other respondents. Interim stay of the direction for deposit of costs. (Neena Verma) Court Master (Khushi Ram)Court Master
(2.) THE applicants claim that they are subsequent purchasers for value without notice and have invested huge amount of money over the said property by constructing multi -storied building, as such directives contained in the judgment under review to the extent that, the petitioner as well as State respondents shall ensure return back of the property in question to private respondents forthwith, shall be adversely affecting their rights, as such said part of the order is liable to be recalled, and as far as fraud part is concerned, they have no concern with the same, as they themselves are the victim of greater fraud, and equitable view be taken in the matter. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing, on behalf of the applicants, who have applied for review, contended that finding of fact returned on fraud by auction purchaser is not being assailed and to the contrary applicants are victim of much more fraud, in the present case, as they are bona fide purchasers for value and once this direction of restoring back property is maintained, they will suffer an irreparable loss and same would be causing unjust enrichment to respondents, who in the past had entered into agreement to sale of the property in question and had realized heavy amount in lieu of the same, and coupled with this, there is no direction for refund of the amount also of the auction money, and at the present moment building worth Rs. 2,00,00,000 is standing and all this will go to the respondents, as such it has been prayed that equitable view be taken and the said two lines be deleted from the body of the judgment.
(3.) SRI V.B. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of private respondents, on the other hand, contended that the applicants have already contested the matter through Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and they are not at all bona fide purchaser for the value and the circumstances are speaking for itself, and once auction has been held to be void, then any subsequent right flowing from it also falls to the ground, and the application for review, as it has been framed and drawn, is liable to be dismissed.;