Viranwali Gulati Deceased Through Lrs v. Defence Estate Officer And Others
appellants submits that the question whether the demarcation of the property was necessary to find out the area which was purchased by the appellants in accordance with the boundaries given in the said document could not be raised before the learned Single Judge for consideration hence, the present appeal may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the appellants to file a review application before the learned Single Judge.
2. Ordered accordingly."
Evidently, the Conveyance Deed (Annexure P-1 of the writ petition) does not contain the extent of area of Bungalow No.59, Jalandhar Cantonment (which concededly forms a part of Survey No.261). Even as per Schedule I attached to the Conveyance Deed, i.e. Annexure P-2 of the writ petition; the measurement of sides of the plot in question are not mentioned. As per General Land Register (GLR), the area of Survey No.261 is 1.65 Acres. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Union of India Vs. Robert Zomawia Street", (2014) 6 SCC 707, has held that entries made in GLR maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive evidence of title; accordingly, area of Bungalow No.59 has to be taken as 1.65 Acres and not 2.61 Acres (as claimed by petitioner).
5.
Apparently, the grounds now sought to be raised in the instant review application were never raised during the hearing of the main writ petition. Further, the grounds now sought to be pressed neither disclose any error apparent on the face of the record nor demonstrate discovery of any new material which was not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of the original proceedings. By filing the present review application, the review applicant/petitioner wants to re-argue and re-agitate the matter, which cannot be permitted in law.
6.
Further, t
7.
That apart, it is noticed that the present review application has been filed by a counsel, who was not a counsel for the petitioners, when the main petition was finally decided. In fact, the review applicants were represented in the main petition by Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate and the present review application has been filed by Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, and Ms. Shazia K.Singh, Advocate. Apparently Mr. Ajayvir Singh, Advocate, and Ms. Shazia K.Singh, Advocate, did not appear at the time of
hearing of the main writ petition. It is not fair to the Court to change a counsel and file a review application. The conduct of such a party is reprehensible and deserves to be deprecated.
7.1 In "Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar", (1997) 1 JT (SC) 486, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "Once an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed, that too by the Advocate on record who neither appeared nor was a party in the main case. It is salutary to note that Court spent valuable time in deciding the case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become in recent time, a practice to file such review petition as a routine, that too with change of counsel. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed ... This practice of changing the Advocate and filing repeated petition should be deprecated with heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary healthy practice. ......
The application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- as it is an abuse of process of Court in derogation of healthy practice." 7.2 In "Dr. B.K. Subba Rao v. M.K. Parasaran" (1996) 7 JT (SC) 265, the Supreme Court observed as under "No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wished. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions."
8.
Keeping in view the above discussion, I find no merit in the review application. Resultantly, the instant review application fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited
with "Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyers'; Family Welfare Fund (Account No.41564846387, S.B.I. High Court Branch)", within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
9.
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.