Allahabad High Court
Nand Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy ... on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 95 of 2023
Applicant :- Nand Lal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Distt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Verma
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri J.P. Verma, learned counsel for the review-applicant/petitioner.
The instant review petition has been filed by the review-petitioner seeking review of the judgment and order dated 01.11.2022.
The review application is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application.
The Court has heard learned counsel for the review-applicant.
At the outset, it may be noticed that the instant review application has been preferred under Chapter-V, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2022 passed in WRIT-B No.657/2022.
It is now well settled that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition. It is only the concept of latches which has to be explained if the petitioner approaches the Court with inordinate delay which has to be construed in context with the circumstances on case to case basis. Where there is no limitation prescribed for the writ petition so also in the Rules of the Court, there is no period fixed for filing a review of a decision passed in a writ petition. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no delay and there is no requirement of moving an application seeking condonation of delay rather the review-applicant/petitioner is required to only explain the latches for approaching the Court with delay.
This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of this Court in Mohd. Jahan Begum and Another v. Board of Revenue and others, 2016 (11) ADJ 110.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court has required the learned counsel for the review-applicant/petitioner to argue on merits.
The submission of Shri J.P. Verma, learned counsel for the review-applicant is that the matter relates to the allotment of chak. He has drawn attention of the Court to a site plan which has been brought on record at running page 13 of the paper-book to indicate that on the plot allotted to the review-applicant/petitioner there existed a boring. The Consolidation Authorities by changing the direction has aligned the allotment of the plots and the boring has fallen into the share of the other tenure holder, who are contagious plot holders. It is thus submitted that on account of the aforesaid, the review-applicant/petitioner is unable to irrigate his field.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, first and foremost, it is noticed that the counsel appearing before the Court in review application is not the counsel, who had argued the writ petition.
In light of the decision of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another v. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9 SCC 736, it is now well settled that the review application is to be argued by the counsel who had filed and argued the writ petition.
Even otherwise, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review-applicant/petitioner and considering the order dated 01.11.2022 where the issue of boring has been considered and finding has been returned, this Court finds that the attempt of the review-applicant/petitioner is nothing but to seek rehearing on merits in the garb of review. It is not permissible for the review-applicant to seek a rehearing on merit. This fact apart no error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed out and for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid review petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Rakesh/-
