- (1.) Present review application has been filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking review/recall/modification of the order dated 24 th July, 2009 whereby Civil Writ Petition No.6182 of 2009 filed by the applicants-petitioners in public interest was disposed of. A prayer was made in the writ petition that the sanction letter dated 6 th March, 2009 issued by Municipal Council, Samrala-respondent No.4 in favour of the Block Primary Education Officer-respondent No.5 be quashed along with the communication dated 2 nd April, 2009 sent by Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.2, PWD B&R Branch, Ludhiana in favour of the Municipal Council, Samrala that they have no objection in case respondent No.5 is permitted to raise construction. It was further prayed in the writ petition that respondent No.5 be restrained from raising any construction in violation of Section 3 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). In the writ petition, it was pleaded that no construction is permitted within 100 meters of either side of the scheduled road and by raising a construction within 88 feet from the scheduled road, respondent No.5 was committing breach of the provisions of law, rules and regulations enacted to this effect.
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. was a party) had relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Municipal Council, Samrala, wherein they stated that the encroachment in question has been removed on 25 th May, 2009, and had disposed of the writ petition on 24 th July, 2009 by observing as under: " We, however, see no reason why the assertion made in the affidavit filed by a responsible officer of the Municipality and charged with the duty of removing the encroachments should be disbelieved in the absence of any material to the contrary. The building in question is a government building and is being used as Block Primary Education Office. The encroachment in question is alleged to have taken place during the construction of the said building. If the Municipal Council of the area is satisfied with the removal of the violation, we see no reason to continue with the present proceedings any further "
(3.) The petitioners filed a Civil Misc. Application for recall of the above said order, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 30 th October, 2009. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing an SLP. The SLP was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 3 rd May, 2010 on the statement made by counsel for the petitioners that he be granted liberty to file an application for review of the order dated 24 th July, 2009.;