LAWS(DLH)-2003-3-109

BAL RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 26, 2003
BAL RAM (SHRI) Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the name of three petitioners, namely, S/S. Bal Ram, Dewan Singh and Gian Ram all sons of late Shri Har Chand. It was filed through Smt. Sumita Rai claiming herself to be the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder and a copy of the said GPA dated 5.2.1990 was enclosed as annexure to the writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, Gian Ram, one of the petitioners, filed CM 12454/2003 for dismissal of the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question belonged to him as well as his two brothers and Smt. Sumita Rai was never authorised to file any such petition. Reference was made to certain proceedings pending between the parties in Suit No. 1486/89 which was filed in this Court and has since been transferred to District Court. It was also stated in the application that one of the petitioners, namely, Bal Ram passed away on 27.5.1994 and on his death alleged GPA stood revoked by operation of law.

(2.) When this application came up for hearing on November 21,2003, Counsel for the Union of India also made a statement that possession of the land in question had already been taken on 12.4.2000 before filing of the petition. After hearing the parties, writ petition was dismissed by passing the following order: "It is a case of the Union of India that the possession of the land in questipn has been already taken on 12.5.2000 and the amount is lying with the Court in Suit No. 1486/89. Today before us, Counsel appearing for Smt. Sumita Rai has stated that she has purchased the rights in the property in question from the erstwhile owner, Shri Bal Ram and others. The parties are agitating before the Civil Court also for the rights of the property and, therefore, it will be for the Civil Court to decide so far as the rights are concerned. So far as the present petition is concerned, we dismiss the petition as the possession has already been taken and the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the petition. The petition stands dismissed accordingly."

(3.) Present application is now filed seeking review of the aforesaid order.