Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tolaram S/O Chunni Lal Khati (Deceased) ... vs Chief Executive Officer Indore ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 139 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. TOLARAM S/O CHUNNI LAL KHATI (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. MAKHAN LAL S/O TOLARAM,
AGED 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION NIL, MENTALLY
DISABLED THROUGH NEXT FRIEND MUKUT
PATEL S/O MAKHANLAL PATEL, R/O: HOUSE
NO.171, NIRANJANPUR TEH. AND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MUKUT PATEL S/O MAKHANLAL PATEL, AGE 36
YEARS, OCCUPATION- AGRICULTURIST, R/O.
HOUSE NO. 171, NIRANJANPUR TEH. AND DIST.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PALASH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INDORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vijay Kumar Shukla passed the following:
ORDER
The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated
15.11.2019 passed in WA No.1091 of 2018.
2. The petitioners filed a writ petition claiming allotment of plot on the basis
of Resolution dated 31.1.1986. The Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid
writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred writ
appeal. The Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for
petitioners and held that the petitioners are claiming allotment of plot on the
basis of Resolution dated 31.1.1986, but the said Resolution was cancelled by
the subsequent Resolution dated 8.10.1993. Before passing of the Resolution
dated 8.10.1993, no order of allotment was issued in favour of the petitioners
and, therefore, the plea of the petitioners in respect of prospective application
of Resolution, administrative order changing the policy decision cannot be
appreciated in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Kusumam Hotels Private Limited Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and
others reported in (2008) 13 SCC 213. The Division Bench has further
considered that even otherwise Resolution dated 31.1.1986 revealed that
benefit of the said Resolution was available to those who had given peaceful
vacant possession of the land after executing advance agreement. The finding
has been recorded that petitioners have not handed over the possession under
the agreement.
3. Thus, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record
warranting any interference in exercise of review power. It is well settled that
cases are heard and decided only once. To make departure from this statutory
rule, the review application must strictly fall within the established parameters.
In light of settled principles of law, in our considered opinion, there is no merit
and substance in the review petition as in a review, the Court has very limited
power circumscribed by definitive limits.
4. The review petition is dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VM
