Delhi High Court
Shri Krishan Kumar Sehrawat vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 28 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Rev. Pet. No. 214/2016 in LPA 169/2014
SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR SEHRAWAT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal with Ms.Ruchika
Sharma with Mr.Aman Mudgal, Advs.
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr.Sanjeev Sagar,
Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
28.03.2017
: MS. G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The main appeal was dismissed by us by order dated 05.02.2016
holding as under:
"10. On account of various reasons stated below, we see
no merits in the present appeal. Firstly, the writ petition
is completely silent about the locus of Sh.Umed Singh to
make the application. The recorded owner of the
acquired land was the grandfather of Sh.Umed Singh, i.e.
Sh.Sita Ram. There are other legal heirs to the plot that
was acquired. As to how, only Sh.Umed Singh is entitled
to make the application for allotment is not explained or
stated. He obviously is not entitled to an alternative plot
de hors the claim of the other legal heirs of Shri Sita
Ram the recorded owner.
11. Further, the facts also show that there is an obvious
delay of 15 years in moving the application. The amnesty
scheme/policy permits only the recorded owner to make
an application for allotment of alternative plot.
Moreover, the scheme only condoned the time period to
apply for an alternative plot for the recorded owner upto
30.04.1986. The application of Sh.Umed Singh was filed
even after this extended period. Hence on the face of it
the application filed by the predecessor of the appellant
was beyond permissible time.
12. Apart from the above, in our opinion, delay and
laches in approaching this court is writ large on the face
of the record. The land was acquired in 1972 while the
application for alternative allotment was made on
1.1.1987. The present writ petition was filed in 2013 i.e.
26 years thereafter. The only explanation given for this
delay is that Shri Umed Singh was following up with the
department, but was told that the matter is under process.
This explanation cannot be accepted. This is a clear case
of unexplained delay and laches.
13. We see no reason to differ with the views taken by
the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed."
2. The present petition is filed seeking review of the said order.
3. The law is well settled that under the guise of a review petition, the
issues which have already been decided cannot be re-agitated. As per Order
47 Rule 1 of CPC, the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of
new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or
could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The
power may also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the
face of record is found. However, power of review cannot be exercised on
the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and
perused the grounds on which the review is sought, we are of the view that
none of the situations contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC have
arisen in the present case. May be it is open to the petitioner to avail the
other remedies available under law to challenge the order dated 05.02.2016,
however, in our considered opinion, it is not a matter for exercising the
power of review.
5. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH, J
MARCH 28, 2017
Pk
