New Delhi Municipal Council v. Dan Singh Bawa & Ors.

1. Review is sought of the judgment dated 18.09.2012 allowing the appeal on the ground that there is an error apparent inasmuch as the judgment fails to notice that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.07.2005 had reviewed the earlier judgment dated 24.03.2005 and that the order dated 22.07.2005 had not been challenged and had attained finality. The senior counsel for the respondents / review applicants further contends 2013:DHC:193-DB that the order dated 06.11.2008 of the learned Single Judge which was challenged in the appeal is in consonance with the said order dated 22.07.2005.

2. We have patiently heard the senior counsel for the respondent No.1 / review applicant and have considered the grounds urged. It has been expressly recorded in para No.9 of the judgment of which review is sought, that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 22.07.2005 did not disturb the findings in the judgment dated 24.03.2005. It was held in the judgment dated 24.03.2005 that there was never any sanction of the plans for constructions on the subject property. Once the ratio of the judgment dated 24.03.2005 is that the plans for construction on the subject property were never sanctioned, the subject property cannot be treated at par with the other properties the plans for construction whereon had been sanctioned.

3. The senior counsel for the respondents / review applicants has argued that the order dated 22.07.2005 substitutes the operative para No.64 of the judgment dated 24.03.2005 and the same has not been given due weightage in the judgment of which review is sought.

4. We do not find it to be so. The judgment of which review is sought has taken a view that changing the operative part of the judgment dated 24.03.2005 would not change the ratio of the said judgment as recorded above. The senior counsel for the respondents / review applicants has also not been able to convince us that changing the operative paragraph No.64 of judgment dated 24.03.2005 would also change the ratio of the judgment.

5. It is thus not as if this Court while delivering the judgment, of which review is sought, was oblivious of the change affected vide order dated 22.07.2005. However this Court was of the view that notwithstanding the said change, the finding of the judgment dated 24.03.2005 remained that the plans for construction on the subject property had never been sanctioned and for which reason the subject property could not be treated similarly as properties plans for construction whereon had been sanctioned.

6. Thus no ground for review is made out. Dismissed. No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CHIEF JUSTICE JANUARY 11, 2013 ‘gsr’