WPMS/455/2009
2025 Latest Caselaw 6401 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/455/2009 on 18 December, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

`



                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.455 of 2009
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioners.

2. Mr. K.S. Mehta, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir Nailwal, S.C. for the State.

Delay Condonation Application in Review Application (IA No.12871 of 2019)

3. There is delay of 41 days in filing the review application.

4. The reasons stated in the delay condonation application are sufficient enough to condone the delay in the review application.

5. The delay of 41 days in filing the review application is condoned.

6. Accordingly delay condonation application is allowed. Review Application (MCC No.915 of 2019)

7. A review application has been filed by the counsel for the petitioners-review applicants for reviewing the judgment and order dated 28.06.2019.

8. The review application has been filed by the petitioners-review applicants on a very limited ground that after judgment and order under review the entire land comprised in Plot Nos.11, 12 and 13c has been vested with the State Government, but the petitioners-review applicants have purchased 1/3rd portion of the aforesaid Plot Nos.11 and 12 vide registered sale deed dated 01.11.1972, therefore the land purchased by the petitioners-review applicants should not have been vested more than the share they purchased.

9. The objection has been filed by the State and it is contended that the sale deed was executed after the cut-off

date 24.01.1971 and all the sale deed after cut-off date are non est and therefore by reason of the aforesaid sale deed dated 01.11.1972 no rights and interest should have been created in favour of the petitioners-review applicants; therefore the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners-review applicants cannot sustain.

10. Accordingly review application is rejected.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.12.2025 SK