WPMS/947/2012
2022 Latest Caselaw 1510 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                          COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     MCC No.4737 of 2022 (Review Application)
                                     IA No.4738 of 2022 (Delay condonation application in review application)
                                     In
                                     WPMS No.947 of 2012
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Tribhuwan Chandra Pandey, Advocate, with Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Negi, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The review has been preferred by the petitioner, seeking review of the judgment dated 13.12.2019, which was rendered by this Court in the proceedings, which was concurrently decided against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972.

The review is supported with the delay condonation application seeking a condonation of 842 days of delay, which has chanced, in filing of the review application.

Having considered the reasons given in the delay condonation application, coupled with the fact that since it is not being seriously opposed by the respondents' counsel, the delay would stand condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review application on its merit.

The solitary ground, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner/review applicant, is that because of the judgment of 13.12.2019, the petitioner has not been able to avail the benefit of a regularization of his possession, as per the Nazul Policy for declaration of free hold, which contemplates the regularization of the long standing possession over the Nazul Policy, but in fact this ground itself cannot be a reason, to review a judgment of 13.12.2019 rendered on merits, because its altogether a subsequent action, which has been taken by the respondents for denying the regularization. The denial itself is not on record, nor was subject matter of consideration earlier.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there happens to be an oral denial but not a written denial, to deny the claim of regularization of the possession of the petitioner.

In fact in that eventuality, the judgment of 13.12.2019, could not be faulted of in any manner, to reflect that there was an apparent error committed by this Court, while rendering the judgment dated 13.12.2019.

Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the review application. The review application is accordingly dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 18.05.2022 NR/