Allahabad High Court
Narendra And Another vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103772-DB
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62614 of 2017
Petitioner :- Narendra And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Dharmendra Kumar Pandey,Kapoor Chandra Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard Sri Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No.4 of 2018:-
2. As delay condonation application is not being opposed by the learned standing counsel, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the delay is condoned and delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Stay Application No.5 of 2018 and Review Application No.6 of 2018:-
3. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that the judgment and order dated 21.02.2018 was passed by the bench which was not having jurisdiction as per Roster. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.02.2018 being without jurisdiction is liable to be reviewed.
4. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to make any other submissions if he wants to make, but he stated that the aforenoted submission is the only submission and he does not want to argue on any other point.
5. Learned standing counsel submits that as per papers filed along with the affidavit accompanying the review application, the case in question is shown on 21.02.2018 in the additional/ unlisted cause list. The matter also touched the land acquisition as was brought to the notice of the court by the respondent No.9, which fact was suppressed by the petitioners. He further submits that the argument which has now been advanced, was neither advanced by the petitioners before the court while arguing the writ petition. He, therefore, submits that the review application is totally frivolous and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and review application. The only ground taken in the review application which may relate to the submissions raised before us by the learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners, is Ground No.9, which is reproduced below:
"9. Because the Judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble court was beyond their jurisdiction as per roster this Hon'ble court miserably erred to connect the matter with Writ C-No.47372 of 2017, Writ C 13677 of 2016 Writ C 32781 of 2016, Writ C 53340 of 2017 and Writ C 53341 of 2017 filed against the order passed by A.D.M. (Land Acquisition), District GautamBuddh Nagar by which the petitioners of above mention writ petition have received the compensation as well as Additional Compensation."
7. We requested learned counsel for the petitioners to point out any other ground which may be relatable but he submits that Ground No.9 is the specific ground which is relatable to the submissions advanced today before this bench. We have carefully perused the Ground No.9 as aforenoted and we find that it does not contain any averment to indicate that the submission as aforenoted which has now been advanced before us, was ever advanced by the petitioners before the bench while arguing the writ petition.
8. In paragraph-16 of the affidavit accompanying the review application, the applicants have stated as under:
"That as during the course of hearing well attempted to satisfy to the court but this Hon'ble court failed to appreciate & exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in order to derive the real controversy involve to adjudication between the parties in existing facts and circumstance of case but relied upon contrary version of the respondents in passing the order."
9. The afore-noted paragraph-16 of the affidavit has been sworn by the petitioner No.1/ deponent on personal knowledge. The writ petition was not argued by the petitioners in person rather it was argued by the counsel Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma. The petitioner No.1/ deponent has nowhere stated in the aforesaid paragraph of the affidavit that he was personally present in court while argument was being made by this counsel in the writ petition. It has also not been stated that who attempted to satisfy the court during the course of hearing. The averment made in paragraph-16 of the affidavit accompanying the review application, is an afterthought allegation.
10. For all the reasons aforestated, we find that the applicants-petitioners have completely failed to make out a case for review of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2018. Stay Application and Review Application, both are totally misconceived and are, therefore, dismissed. .
Order Date :- 12.5.2023
NLY
