BAL KISHAN KAPAHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed by the applicant under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC praying for review of the order dated 3rd March, 2005 and also with a further prayer that the counsel was present and had argued the matter and his presence may be ordered to be recorded in the judgment of the Court. This application is barred by time and another application being CM No. 6456/2005 has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the present review application. The judgment in the present case was passed on 3rd March, 2005. Certified copy of the judgment was applied on 18th March, 2005. The same was ready for delivery on 24th March, 2005. The present review application was filed on 8th April, 2005. It was under objection and it was refiled on 25th April, 2005 and thereafter on 4th May, 2005. Keeping in view that there is hardly any opposition to this application and for the first time the application was filed within time, we see no reason to decline the prayer in this application.

(2.) Consequently the application for condonation of delay being CM 6456/2005 is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. Coming to the merit of the review application, what has been stated by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that he was present and had argued the matter but in the judgment the presence of the counsel has not been recorded. We have no reason to disbelieve the averment made by the petitioner in this application, which is supported by an affidavit and is also duly signed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we direct the registry to add the name of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the appearance as large number of counsel were appearing in these petitions and possibility of omission of attendance of counsel cannot be ruled out. This prayer is allowed. The registry shall make proper amendments and issue certified copy thereupon. The main contention raised for review of order/judgment dated 3rd March, 2005 is that the petitioner had filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and also that previous writ petition filed by the petitioner being CWP NO.334/84 was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition. Both these arguments are of no consequence. In the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Chatro Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors. 120 (2005) Delhi Law Times 9 (DB), there was no difference of opinion as far as acquisition of land in the revenue estate of Village Shayoorpur is concerned. The Bench was unanimous on various legal issues raised in the writ petition relating to Village Shayoorpur. The petitioner in his writ petition had made a vague averment that he waited for long time and did not hear anything from the officials of the respondent regarding his objections. No date has been given. Nothing was annexed to the writ petition showing that objections under Section 5A were filed and if so, when and before whom.

(3.) Even if we assume that objections under Section 5A were filed, as already noticed in Chatro Devi case (supra) , the Division Bench had considered at length this aspect of the matter and held that objections filed under Section 5A of the Act were duly considered by the authorities in accordance with law and such inquiry and issuance of declaration under Section 6 did not call for any interference by the Court and process of acquisition was completed in accordance with law. As far as this contention of the petitioner is concerned, this even does not fall within the purview of scope of provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. Reference in this regard may be made to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Jain and Another Vs. Union of India and Ors. 122 (2005) Delhi Law Times 431 (DB) where the Court held as under :-