Full Text
Rev. Pet. No. 214/2016 in LPA 169/2014 SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR SEHRAWAT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal with Ms.Ruchika Sharma with Mr.Aman Mudgal, Advs.
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Adv. for R-2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH O R D E R 28.03.2017
: MS. G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT
1. The main appeal was dismissed by us by order dated 05.02.2016 holding as under:
2017:DHC:1779-DB de hors the claim of the other legal heirs of Shri Sita Ram the recorded owner.
11. Further, the facts also show that there is an obvious delay of 15 years in moving the application. The amnesty scheme/policy permits only the recorded owner to make an application for allotment of alternative plot. Moreover, the scheme only condoned the time period to apply for an alternative plot for the recorded owner upto 30.04.1986. The application of Sh.Umed Singh was filed even after this extended period. Hence on the face of it the application filed by the predecessor of the appellant was beyond permissible time.
12. Apart from the above, in our opinion, delay and laches in approaching this court is writ large on the face of the record. The land was acquired in 1972 while the application for alternative allotment was made on 1.1.1987. The present writ petition was filed in 2013 i.e. 26 years thereafter. The only explanation given for this delay is that Shri Umed Singh was following up with the department, but was told that the matter is under process. This explanation cannot be accepted. This is a clear case of unexplained delay and laches.
13. We see no reason to differ with the views taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed."
2. The present petition is filed seeking review of the said order.
3. The law is well settled that under the guise of a review petition, the issues which have already been decided cannot be re-agitated. As per Order
47 Rule 1 of CPC, the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power may also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. However, power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and perused the grounds on which the review is sought, we are of the view that none of the situations contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC have arisen in the present case. May be it is open to the petitioner to avail the other remedies available under law to challenge the order dated 05.02.2016, however, in our considered opinion, it is not a matter for exercising the power of review.
5. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE JAYANT NATH, J MARCH 28, 2017 Pk