Delhi High Court
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Dan Singh Bawa (Deceased) Through ... on 11 January, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th January, 2013
+ Review Petition No.712/2012 and
CM No.20550/2012 (for condonation of delay)
In
LPA No.210/2009
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Appellant
Through: None.
Versus
DAN SINGH BAWA (DECEASED) THROUGH
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & ORS. ..... Respondents/
Review Applicant
Through: Mr. Rajiv Sahani, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
P. Nagesh & Mr. Anand M. Mishra,
Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. Review is sought of the judgment dated 18.09.2012 allowing the
appeal on the ground that there is an error apparent inasmuch as the
judgment fails to notice that the learned Single Judge vide order dated
22.07.2005 had reviewed the earlier judgment dated 24.03.2005 and that the
order dated 22.07.2005 had not been challenged and had attained finality.
The senior counsel for the respondents / review applicants further contends
Review Petition No.712/2012 & CM No.20550/2012 (for condonation of delay)
that the order dated 06.11.2008 of the learned Single Judge which was
challenged in the appeal is in consonance with the said order dated
22.07.2005.
2. We have patiently heard the senior counsel for the respondent No.1 /
review applicant and have considered the grounds urged. It has been
expressly recorded in para No.9 of the judgment of which review is sought,
that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 22.07.2005 did
not disturb the findings in the judgment dated 24.03.2005. It was held in the
judgment dated 24.03.2005 that there was never any sanction of the plans for
constructions on the subject property. Once the ratio of the judgment dated
24.03.2005 is that the plans for construction on the subject property were
never sanctioned, the subject property cannot be treated at par with the other
properties the plans for construction whereon had been sanctioned.
3. The senior counsel for the respondents / review applicants has argued
that the order dated 22.07.2005 substitutes the operative para No.64 of the
judgment dated 24.03.2005 and the same has not been given due weightage
in the judgment of which review is sought.
4. We do not find it to be so. The judgment of which review is sought
has taken a view that changing the operative part of the judgment dated
Review Petition No.712/2012 & CM No.20550/2012 (for condonation of delay)
24.03.2005 would not change the ratio of the said judgment as recorded
above. The senior counsel for the respondents / review applicants has also
not been able to convince us that changing the operative paragraph No.64 of
judgment dated 24.03.2005 would also change the ratio of the judgment.
5. It is thus not as if this Court while delivering the judgment, of which
review is sought, was oblivious of the change affected vide order dated
22.07.2005. However this Court was of the view that notwithstanding the
said change, the finding of the judgment dated 24.03.2005 remained that the
plans for construction on the subject property had never been sanctioned and
for which reason the subject property could not be treated similarly as
properties plans for construction whereon had been sanctioned.
6. Thus no ground for review is made out.
Dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 11, 2013
'gsr'
Review Petition No.712/2012 & CM No.20550/2012 (for condonation of delay)
