Surya Kant, J. - (1.) CM No. 4669 of 2008
(2.) THIS application seeks to recall the order dated 25.07.2006 whereby the applicant -petitioner's writ petition was dismissed observing as follows: - ... In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that the possession of the plot had been offered by the Estate Officer to the petitioner in the month of August, 2000, we are satisfied that the grievances made by the petitioner are wholly unjustified. However, before parting with this order, we must take note of the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that offer of possession made by the Estate Officer was never received by the petitioner at any point of time. However, in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents, we are not inclined to believe the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the petitioner... The applicant has averred that the plea taken before this Court regarding delivery of possession to her was palpably false as the respondents vide their letter dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure A -3) have candidly acknowledged that possession of the plot could not be delivered to her as the area of the plot "falls under the forest land".
(3.) NOTICE of this application was issued and in response thereto, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, has filed his reply -affidavit. Though it is again averred that possession of the plot was offered to the petitioner vide memo dated 31.08.2000 and she did not come forward, the fact that the subject plot falls in the 'forest area' where construction of the houses has been banned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has also been admitted. The correspondence between HUDA authorities and the Forest Department substantiating this plea has also been appended with the reply -affidavit.;