Ram Narayan Alias Raj Narayan Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 16830 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Narayan Alias Raj Narayan Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 13 May, 2024

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Ashutosh Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86142-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 204 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Narayan Alias Raj Narayan Shukla
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sr. Advocate,Vineet Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,Arun Kumar,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Pranjal Singh for the review applicant, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava for the Development Authority and Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing counsel.

Review is sought by the petitioner of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 29.3.2022 in Writ Petition No.4639 of 2013. The order dated 29.3.2022 reads as under:-

"Learned counsel for the parties fairly submits that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res-integra and stands squarely covered by several decisions including the decision rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32884 of 2009 (Asha Tomar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) as affirmed by the Apex Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in light of the decision rendered in the case of Asha Tomar (supra)."

A bare perusal of the order would reveal that the writ petition was disposed of in view of the agreement between the parties that the issue raised in the writ stands resolved under the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.32884 of 2009 (Asha Tomar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). The judgment in Asha Tomar (supra) has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Once the adjudication by the Court is based upon a statement of the counsel as per which the controversy stands concluded under the previous adjudication of the Court, we do not find any occasion to entertain the review application on behalf of the petitioners, inasmuch as the previous adjudication by this Court was based on a consent with regard to applicability of the previous adjudication on the matter in issue.

The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the statement was inadvertently made and that facts are distinct need not be entertained by the Court, particularly as the acquisition is of the year 1996, wherein urgency clause was invoked and the award was also declared on 9.2.2010. After such long lapse of time, we are not inclined to revive the controversy which otherwise stands concluded under the previous adjudication by this Court, which has attained finality up to the Supreme Court.

The review application is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 13.5.2024

RA