KRISHAN DASS S/O LATE SH. INDER, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JIANA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P. Vs. SMT. GYATRI DEVI, W/O SH. SHAKTI CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main issue raised in this appeal is that the private respondents in their application for reservation of land out of disputed khasra number had only prayed that 0 -2 marlas of land be reserved but actually 1 kanal has been granted to them. Before the consolidation authorities the appellant had challenged the allotment of the khasra number to the private respondents in to but had never raised a plea that since the private respondents had only asked for 2 marlas they could not be granted more than that. No doubt, in the writ petition an averment has been made that the private respondents had only applied for reservation of 2 marlas of land out of the said khasra number, but in the order passed by the learned Single Judge there is no reference to such argument being raised. In a writ petition many averments may be made but the Judge is only expected to deal with those submissions which are urged and argued before him.

(2.) IN the case in hand the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge by another learned counsel and the review petition was filed by another learned counsel. How could the second counsel know what was argued by the previous counsel in the writ petition. Even before certifying that there are sufficient grounds for the review petition to be filed the second counsel should have satisfied himself by obtaining an affidavit from the first counsel that such averments had been urged. This point which was definitely not taken before the consolidation authorities and does not appear to have been urged before the learned Single Judge cannot be permitted to be raised in a Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.