Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 10 April, 2024
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:65815-DB Court No. - 37 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 579 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmraj Chaudhary,Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
The present review application has been filed for review of order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the notifications challenged in the present writ petition had been upheld by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10428 of 2010 which order was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 35211 of 2010.
The review application has been filed by an advocate who was not the counsel for the party in the writ petition. That would have been sufficient for us to dismiss the review application in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr. (1997) 9 SCC 736. However, we have also looked into the merits of the review application.
The counsel for the review applicant states that the Court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition relying on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10428 of 2010 in as much as the notifications under challenge in the writ petition were not under consideration in Writ Petition No. 10428 of 2010 and the connected petitions.
We are not able to agree with the contention of the counsel for the applicant. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10428 of 2010 upheld the notifications dated 26.05.2009 and 09.11.2009 and the urgency clause invoked under Section 17 (4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that there were sufficient material before the State Government to form a considered opinion to invoke the urgency clause. The notifications dated 26.05.2009 and 09.11.2009 were regarding Surajpur village and were under consideration of this Court in Tarachand & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. as would be evident from page 77 of the paper-book of the review application. A reading of the judgment shows that the Division Bench of this Court in Tarachand (supra) had taken note of the fact that Writ Petition No. 7760 of 2010 has been filed challenging notifications dated 26.05.2009 and 09.11.2009 regarding acquisition of the same area, i.e., 1.4389 hectares challenged in the present petition. In case, the act of the Government in invoking the urgency clause in relation to a large chunk of land acquired in Surajpurvillage was upheld by this Court, the same principle as laid down in Tarachand (supra) would apply, so far as the present petition is concerned and no fault can be found with the Government in invoking the urgency clause so far as present notifications are concerned. In any case, the order dated 27.04.2023 was passed after hearing counsel for the applicant and the review application does not state that any argument was raised by the counsel for the applicant that the judgment in Tarachand (supra) was not applicable in the present case. The present review application is only an attempt to re-argue the case and the applicant cannot be permitted to reopen the case.
The review application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Vipasha