Ram Lakhan Singh And Another vs First Addl. Commissioner Lucknow ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 21743 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 169 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- First Addl. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Shankar Sahai
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

(C.M. Application No. 1 of 2022)

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing Civil Misc. Review Application for review of the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 3000093 of 1996.

Cause shown in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the instant application for condonation of delay is sufficient.

Application is allowed.

Delay is condoned.

(Order on Review Application)

The present review petition has been preferred for review of the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed in Writ-C No. 3000093 of 1996 (Pukhraj Singh and Another vs. First Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Ors.).

The grounds taken in the review were never argued before this Court in the writ petition. As a matter of fact, there was no occasion also for the petitioner to have argued any such point/ground as in the writ proceedings, the matter pertains only about the choice/preference given by the petitioner about the land for exchange. This fact would also be clear on a perusal of order dated 30.01.1983 passed by the Prescribed Authority which shows that the matter before him was confined to the stage of giving preference regarding exchange of land.

The preference given by the petitioner was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority and against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.01.1983, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the appellate order impugned in the writ petition was also confined to the matter pertaining to exchange/choice of the land to be given as surplus, so, also the argument before this Court in the writ petition was relating only to choice/preference of land given by the petitioner. No argument was advanced relating to sale-deeds etc, which is now being tried to be raised for the first time in the review petition. Since the matter was confined to choice/preference, no argument was rightly advanced relating to the sale deeds etc.

The position as mentioned above, would further stand clarified on perusal of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.06.1982. At that stage earlier, the petitioner seem to have raised a question about benefit of sale deeds allegedly executed prior to the cut-off date and that ground was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority in the order dated 30.06.1982. It appears that the petitioner did not file any appeal against the order dated 30.06.1982 and allowed the matter to become final.

The proceedings in the writ petition before this Court had arisen out of the question relating to preference/choice and in this view of the matter, the question relating to sale-deeds etc was rightly not argued in the writ petition.

The review petition is mis-conceived and is an effort to raise a new case not argued earlier, much less there is any error apparent on the face of the record or in the judgment dated 21.07.2022.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present review petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the review petitioner with the State Legal Aid Authority within a period of two months from today, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Order Date :- 19.12.2022

Nitesh