Allahabad High Court
M/S Concept Cars Ltd. Thru. Authorized ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 10 November, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Reserved Case :- Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.100 of 2022 Applicant :- M/S Concept Cars Ltd. Thru. authorized signatory Ram Chandra Rajwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and 4 others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Abhishek Dhaon Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2022 Heard.
This application seeks condonation of delay in filing the review application.
Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the review application are sufficient.
Application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.
Order on Memo of Review Application
1. The present review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.7472 of 2021, Sharad Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others, with a prayer to recall the aforesaid judgment and order and restore the Public Interest Ligation Petition to its original number and decide the same afresh after impleading the review-applicant as party to the proceedings.
2. This review application has been filed after the judgment and order dated 29.7.2022 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.330 of 2022, M/s Concept Cars Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgement reads as under:-
"10. Conclusion:
For what has been narrated herein above, our indefeasible conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is that it will neither be appropriate nor in the interest of justice to pronounce any judgment on the issues discussed and considered by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal herein, unless the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue and its impact on the issues involved in the case are considered and decided by the learned Single Judge.
Order Accordingly, this Special Appeal is disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge by way of seeking review of the judgment and order under appeal. While filing the review petition, it will be open to the appellant to take all the grounds which may be available to it under law.
There will be no order as to costs."
3. Against the said order of the Division Bench, the review-applicant has approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.26721 of 2022, which got dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.8.2022.
4. In brief, the grounds which have been taken in the review application, are that the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022 contains direction for removal of illegal encroachment in terms of the order dated 4.6.2021 passed by the District Judge, whereby the District Magistrate set aside the resumption order dated 30.1.1987 and directions were issued for initiating eviction proceedings in terms of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The said order was set aside by the Board of Revenue in its judgment and order dated 20.6.2022 and, therefore, the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.6.2021 was not in existence at the time of passing of the judgement and order under review dated 5.7.2022.
5. The review-applicant was not a party in the Public Interest Litigation and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 2.8.2021, by which Revision No.1351 of 2021 filed by Ram Chandra Rajwar, Manager of the review-applicant, M/s Concept Cars Limited impugning the order dated 4.6.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, was disposed of on the very first day with direction to the State Government to consider the request of the revisionist for exchange of land in question and till such consideration, status-quo was directed to be maintained. The validity of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 2.8.2021 could not have been challenged in the Public Interest Litigation.
6. It has been further submitted that in view of the prayers made in the Public Interest Litigation, inquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate and, thereafter, no further orders were required to be passed and, this Court while passing the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022 had travelled beyond the prayers made in the Public Interest Litigation. The enabling provisions of Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which permit exchange of public land was not placed before this Court. The Government Order dated 9.5.1984 permitting the resumption of land for being allotted to private entities, has also not been considered in the said judgement and order under review dated 5.7.2022.
7. Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary and Abhishek Dhaon, learned counsel for the review-applicant has placed reliance on several judgments to submit that the review-applicant was an independent corporate entity and is a necessary party and without the review-applicant being heard, the impugned judgment and order under review could not have been passed. He has pressed in service the following judgements in support of his contention:-
1. Prabodh Verma Vs. State of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 251 (page 273 and para 28);
2. Ramrao Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (2004) 2 SCC 76 (Page 86-87, para 27);
3. Dattatreya Vs. Mahaveer, (2004) 10 SCC 665 (page 673, para 10);
4. Santosh Sood Vs. Ganjendra Singh (2009) 7 SCC 314 (page 318, paras 14, 15, 17 and 18);
5. Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary, (1991) 3 SCC 756 (page 767, para25);
6. Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337 (page 343, para 12);
7. Kansing Kalusing Thakore Vs. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai (2006) 12 SCC 360 (page 366, para 24);
8. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, 1963 Supp.(1) SCR 676:AIR1963 SC 786;
9. Chief of the Army Staff Vs. Daya Shanker Tiwari, (2003) SCC OnLine All 829 (para 9);
10. Ram Swarup Vs. S.N. Maira (1999) 1 SCC 738 (page 740, para 3);
11. Swapna Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha (2018) 17 SCC 621 (page 625, para 12);
12. Jagtu Vs. Suraj Mal, (2010) 13 SCC 769 (paras 5 and 6);
13. State of Assam Vs. Union of India (2010) 10 SCC 408 (page 412, paras 15, 16 and 23);
14. Aron Salomon Vs. A. Salomon and Co. Ltd., (1897) AC 22;
15. R.F. Perumal Vs. H. John Deavin, AIR 1960 Mad. 43; and
16. Civil Appeal Nos.5755-5756 of 2011, Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) thru LRs and others, decided on 27.9.2022
8. He has, therefore, submitted that the review-applicant may be impleaded as party-respondent and the impugned judgment and order be recalled and the entire Public Interest Litigation should be re-heard.
9. On the other hand, Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the grounds taken in the review application are wholly misconceived and the review application has no merit and substance, and it deserves to be rejected in view of the detailed findings recorded by this Court in the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022 under review.
10. The detailed facts have been noted in the judgement and order dated 5.7.2022 under review and, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same are not repeated in the present order.
11. The review-applicant is none other than a company incorporated by the trustees of the Gyan Yog Charitable Trust. In the meeting of the Board of the Trust dated 20.9.2009, Sri Surya Vardhan Agarwal (Treasurer) and Yash Vardhan Agarwal (Trustee), who are the sons of Sri Sanjeev Agarwal, Chairman/President of the Trust and one of the Directors of the review-applicant were present, and it was resolved to part away certain portion of the Government's land and consequently, the sale deed dated 9.6.2010 was executed in favour of Sri Surya Vardhan Agarwal and Yash Vardhan Agarwal. Thus, if the veil is lifted, the real character of the review-applicant would get revealed and it is nothing but an alter ego as the same trustees are the Directors of the review-applicant.
12. Sri Sanjeev Agarwal, who is one of the Directors of the review-applicant, had filed the pleadings in the Public Interest Litigation, in which the judgement and order dated 5.7.2022 under review was passed. He was representing not only the trust, but the review-applicant also, which would be evident from the several affidavits and the pleadings filed by Sri Sanjeev Agarwal in dual capacity as the Managing Director of the Trust and the Director of the review-applicant.
13. This Court has taken note of these facts in the judgement and order under review that how in a fraudulent and dishonest manner the Government land, which was purportedly allotted for charitable purposes, was sold to its own trustees by the trust vide sale deed dated 9.6.2010 in a gross contravention of the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the Indian Trust Act. The two sale deeds dated 9.6.2010 and 1.7.2020 were void ab initio and were nullity in the eyes of law. If the sale deeds itself were nullity and void ab initio, the review-applicant can not claim any right and title on the said null and void sale deeds. The review-applicant has not been able to show in the review application that the sale deeds dated 9.6.2010 and 1.7.2020 were valid and conferred a legal title over the land in favour of the two worthy sons of Sri Sanjeev Agarwal, who are the Directors of the review-applicant. When the sale deeds are null and void ab initio, no right and title would get conferred on the review-applicant as its occupation on the land in question would be nothing but an encroachment of the Government land.
14. In respect of the dated 2.8.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, this Court has taken note of the said order in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022. It would be apt to extract the aforesaid paragraphs herein-under:-
15. During the pendency of this writ petition, another revision bearing No.1351 of 2021 came to be filed by Ram Chandra Razwar, the Manager of the Concept Carts Limited under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 impugning the order dated 4.6.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi. Interestingly, while the writ petition was pending on the subject matter and the High Court was in seisen of the subject matter, the Board of Revenue proceeded to decide the said revision and passed the order dated 2.8.2021. Two very interesting aspects of the order dated 2.8.2021 are to be taken note of. The Board of Revenue in paragraph eight of the said order held that the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the complainant and the Standing Counsel for the revenue regarding maintainability of the revision on behalf of the Concept Cars Limited or its Manager had force. It was said that the Manager of the Concept Cars Limited and the Concept Cars Limited itself had no right file and maintain the revision challenging the validity of the order dated 4.6.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi and, therefore, the Board of Revenue accepted the preliminary objection raised regarding the maintainability of the revision. It was observed that if the revisionist was so advised, he could become the party in the revision filed on behalf of the Trust impugning the order dated 4.6.2021, but the revision on behalf of the Manager of the Concept Cars Limited/Concept Cars Limited would not be maintainable. Despite the said finding on the preliminary objection, the Board of Revenue held that the prayer of the revisionist i.e. Manager of the Concept Cars Limited regarding exchange of the land in question with some other land being offered on behalf of the revisionist/Concept Cars Limited in exercise of powers under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would be required to be considered.
16. This Court is of the considered view that the Board of Revenue has incorrectly held that the land in Gata No.1175 was not recorded as ''public utility land' though the same was recorded as ''Jangal Dhak' and was a public utility land as per the provisions of Para A-124 of the U.P. Land Records Manual. The Board of Revenue held that since the said land was not a public utility land, therefore, the said land could be exchanged with some other land of equal value and there would not be any legal hurdle in doing so. The Board of Revenue thus, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hardoi to make inspection of the lands, which are being offered by the revisionist/Concept Cars Limited in exchange of the land in Gata No.1175, and take possession of the land offered by the revisionist in exchange of the land in Gata No.1175 of the area, which would be 10% more than the area of Gata No.1175. It has been further held that the said order of exchange would be subject to the final outcome of Revision No.1146 of 2021 filed by the Trust. It has been ordered that that the revisionist would file an affidavit before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and will undertake that in case the order dated 4.6.2021 is affirmed, the revisionist should not claim any right in respect of the land being offered in exchange of the land in Gata No.1175, and in future if it was found that the land offered in exchange of land in Gata No.1175 had any defect of ownership, then the revisionist would be liable to compensate for the loss, if any. It has been ordered that the revisionist would file the undertaking along with application within a period of two weeks before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been directed to make inspection of the land in Gata Nos.1143, 1167 Cha and 846, which are being offered in exchange and then out of the three gatas, the most valuable land should be accepted in exchange. After taking possession of the said land, the possession should be handed over to the Gram Sabha. It has been further directed that all this should be completed within a period of six weeks. It has been ordered that for a period of two months or from the date of taking possession of the land offered in exchange of Gata No.1175, status-quo in respect of the possession of Gata No.1175 shall be maintained.
17. Thus, on one hand the Board of Revenue held that the revision on behalf of the Manager of Concept Cars Limited or by the Concept Cars Limited itself was not maintainable, and on the other hand, it allowed the prayer of the revisionist/Manager of the Concept Cars Limited for exchange of the land. This Court finds the approach of the Board of Revenue wholly illegal, unjustified and against the judicial propriety inasmuch as when the High Court was in seisen of the matter, the Board of Revenue had no business to proceed with the matter. Further, after holding that the revision was not maintainable, the Board of Revenue had allowed the prayer of the revisionist/Manager of the Concept Cars Limited in a most illegal and uncalled for manner. The Board of Revenue has overreached its jurisdiction and this Court deprecates the way the order has been passed to favour a private party in a non-maintainable proceeding. This Court holds that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 2.8.2021 is wholly illegal, non est and without jurisdiction. The authorities are directed not to take any action in pursuance of the order dated 2.8.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue.
18. After Revision No.1146 of 2021 was filed by the Trust against the order darted 4.6.2021, the Trust filed a recall application before the District Magistrate, Hardoi praying to recall the order dated 4.6.2021. However, the District Magistrate vide order dated 31.1.2022 rejected the said application for recall on the ground that against the order dated 4.6.2021, a revision had already been filed by the Trust being Revision No.1146 of 2021 before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the recall application was not maintainable. Against the said order dated 31.1.2022, the Trust has filed another Revision bearing No.511 of 2022 before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide interim order dated 9.3.2022, admitted the said revision and strangely enough stayed the orders dated 4.6.2021 and 31.1.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi. The Board of Revenue appears to be extra generous and benevolent towards the revisionist. The approach of the Board of Revenue is anything but judicial.
15. Once the Board of Revenue held that the revision was not maintainable on behalf of the review-applicant, no further direction could have been issued. In any view of the matter, direction for removal of illegal encroachment from the Government land is independent of the aforesaid observations made in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the judgement and order darted 5.7.2022 under review.
16. In respect of the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 2.8.2021 and 20.6.2022 and the order dated 4.7.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, this Court in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while dealing with the issue of public importance regarding land grabbing by the trustees and transferring the same to themselves for erecting commercial establishment, has passed the order to prevent the perpetuity and illegality after taking note of the fraud committed by the trustees in occupying the Government land ostensibly taken for public purpose and then transferring it to themselves for commercial venture.
17. This Court has passed the judgement and order dated 5.7.2022 in Public Interest Litigation in respect of the Gram Sabha land, which is the jurisdiction assigned to this Court as per the roster. While exercising the jurisdiction of the Public Interest Litigation, this Court is not bound to limit itself to the prayers made in the Public Interest Litigation, and it is always open to the Court to take judicial notice of fraud, illegality, cheating and grabbing of the public land and, therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the review-applicant that this Court has travelled beyond the scope of the Public Interest Litigation, is wholly misconceived. This Court can take the facts suo motu.
18. The Supreme Court in the cases of Gaurav Jain Vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 8 SCC 114 (Paragraph 51) and in A. Abdul Farooq Vs. Municipal Council, Perambalur and others, (2009) 15 SCC 351 (Paragraph 33) held that strict rules of pleadings are not necessarily to be adhered by the Court even after it is found that the petitioners are busy bodies.
19. In respect of the ground taken under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 that the State Government may consider for exchange of the public land, this Court has considered the scope of the said Section in the judgement and order under review in paragraphs 50 and 59(4), which would read as under:-
"50. The land which was a public utility land, was resumed and allotted in favour of a private person, Late R.S Agrawal, Ex-IAS officer by the then District Magistrate in purported exercise of the power under Section 117(6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 for charitable purpose and now it is being used for commercial purposes, therefore, such a land cannot be exchanged in any manner. Even otherwise, under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the land in which bhumidhari rights cannot get accrued, cannot be exchanged.
59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, answers to the questions formulated above are as under:-
(i). ......
(ii). ......
(iii). ...........
(vi). As discussed above, in respect of the public utility land, no bhumidhari right can be accrued. The land recorded as ''Jangal Dhak', is a public utility land and under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, no bhumidhari right could not have been created in respect of the land in question. Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer for exchange of land, but this power does not extend to the land of the Gram Sabha, which is a public utility land and in which no bhumidhari right can be accrued. Therefore, no exchange is possible in respect of the land in question."
20. In a recent judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44407 of 2012, Phool Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 21.1.2020 in paragraph 9, it has been held that the provisions of Section 161 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950, which is in pari materia to Section 101 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has not been envisaged for being used as a tool or measure to camouflage, over come, legalise or legitimize an illegality. Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgement is extracted hereunder:-
"9. On a more fundamental place, the provisions made in Section 161 of the 1950 Act are principally aimed at respective parties arriving at a mutually acceptable position that is beneficial to both. It essentially enables the Gaon Sabha to effectively manage its land bank and use it to the optimal in public interest. At the same time it also facilitates the landowner or the bhumidhar to enter into a settlement which is beneficial to both parties. Notwithstanding the above, Section 161 is not envisaged to be a tool or measure to camouflage, overcome, legalise or legitimise an illegality. It is not meant to be a used as an instrument or device to regularise or validate an illegality. It cannot possibly be viewed as a provision enabling a usurper or encroacher of public utility land to attempt to legalise wrongful possession. As this Court reads that provision, it primarily appears to put in place a mechanism to interchange land inter parties. It is principally a reciprocal arrangement. It clearly does not and cannot in law be countenanced in law as being a provision aimed at curing an illegality or according ipso facto approval to an illegal act of usurpation or encroachment. It is not entitled to be viewed as either endorsing or legitimizing an illegality. Section 161 is essentially aimed at enabling a party to switch, barter or exchange land to the mutual benefit of both parties. A party cannot first encroach, trespass or intrude and then claim a right to exchange. It is clearly not a provision aimed at legalizing an encroachment. A person who has encroached or trespassed upon land cannot subsequently turn around and seek condonation of that act or infraction by seeking an exchange. A person seeking an exchange must be one who is in lawful possession of land which is offered in exchange. Viewed in any other light, the provision may be abused as a devise to accord legitimacy upon an act which is illegal and unlawful. The institution which appears to have encroached upon public utility land cannot take shelter of an application purported to have been made under Section 161 of the 1950 Act. In any case the pendency of a purported application for exchange cannot confer any benefit to the petitioner here."
21. The other ground taken by the review-applicant is that while passing the judgement and order dated 5.7.2022, the Government Order dated 9.5.1984 which permitted resumption of Gram Sabha land for being allotted to public entities was not considered. In terms of the provisions contained in paragraph seven of the Government Order dated 9.5.1984, the allotment in favour of a private entity is permissible only for a specific period. The order of resumption dated 30.1.1987 would make it evident that no such period was prescribed and secondly, the trust was never vested with the authority to alienate and sell the land mentioned in the order of resumption dated 30.1.1987, that too to its own trustees for commercial establishment.
22. It is a well settled proposition of law that a review is neither an opportunity of re-hearing nor it can be disguised as an appeal. The review-applicant, which is nothing but an alter ego of the trust, has failed to demonstrate that even if it would have been given an opportunity for the sake of being heard in the Public Interest Litigation, what pleadings or documents could have been placed before the Writ Court, which could have reversed the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 5.7.21022.
23. The Board of Revenue is under supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, it is always open for the High Court to scrutinize any order passed by the Board of Revenue in the Public Interest Litigation, which has direct bearing of the issues involved in the Public Interest Litigation. This Court has taken judicial notice of the proceedings pending before the Board of Revenue prior to its judgement dated 20.6.2022 in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022, which have been extracted herein before.
24. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 20.6.2022 had directed for vesting of the land in the Gram Sabha, which was resumed vide order of the District Magistrate dated 30.1.1987. However, without any plausible rhyme or reason, an exception has been carved out on the basis of the very transactions of the land in favour of the trustees, which are null and void ab initio. If the sale deed are null and void, even its cancellation by a Suit is not necessary as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal and others, (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Paragraph 16).
25. So far the ground taken by the learned counsel for the review-applicant that the judgement of the Board of Revenue dated 20.6.2022 was not placed before this Court before delivering the judgement and order dated 5.7.2022 under review is concerned, the judgment and order pronounced by the Constitutional Court will have precedence and binding authority over the order passed by a revenue authority/board.
26. The Board of Revenue knowing fully well that the Public Interest Litigation is going and the judgement has been reserved, proceeded to pass the order dated 20.6.2022 favouring the trustees/review-applicant against the judicial propriety. This Court has noted on the favourable disposition of the Board of Revenue towards the Board of Trustees in the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 20.6.2022 has treated vesting of the land in the Government simply as an encroachment. The case is not of simple encroachment, but it is a case of fraud and cheating besides encroachment. This Court while dealing with the facts had detailed in the judgment and order, did not deem it fit to carve out an exception in favour of the trust or the trustees and, as mentioned above, the review-applicant is nothing but an alter ego of the trust inasmuch as the trustees are the Directors and the land in question was sold by trust to its trustees. The exception carved out by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 20.6.2022 runs contrary to the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue itself and such an order can not be taken note of in view of the detailed findings recorded by this Court in the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022 under review.
27. Sri Sanjeev Agarwal had filed caveat in the Public Interest Litigation. In the counter affidavit filed on 5.6.2021, Sri Sanjeev Agarwal in paragraph 3 had stated that he was a Director of Concept Cars Limited, review-applicant and the same has also been stated in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, but he never raised objection regarding impleadment of the review-applicant in the Public Interest Litigation. Pleadings have also been made regarding the review-applicant in some of the affidavits filed on behalf of Sanjeev Agarwal. Paragraphs 43 to 46 of the affidavit dated 1.2.2022 filed on behalf of Sri Sanjeev Agarwal, Managing Director of the Trust and the Director of the review-applicant, would read as under:-
"43. That subsequently Shri Yash Vardhan Agarwal had leased out the land purchased by him to one M/s Concept Cars Ltd. Vide lease deed dated 24.09.2010. A copy of the lease deed dated 24.09.2010 is filed as Annexure A-22 to this affidavit.
44. That subsequently M/s Concept Cars Ltd. Has constructed a full/fledged showroom over the property Plot No.1175 by including part of the property Plot No.1167 also (which was the private property of the company aforesaid) as it was the adjoining property with common boundary towards northern side of the property Plot No.1175.
45.That the construction was made after due sanction of the Development Authority.
46. That the property in dispute is situated in an area which is covered by the provisions of Regulation of Building Operation Act, 1961, therefore, M/s Concept Cars Ltd. has moved an application before the prescribed authority of R.D.O. for sanction of map.
Since the area involved for the purposes of raising construction was greater than the limit available for the prescribed authority under R.B.O. as such the matter was forwarded to the Chief Town Planner, Lucknow under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development and Planning and it was ultimately sanctioned by the office of Chief Town Planner, Lucknow finding the title of M/s Concept Cars Ltd. Valid."
28. In the affidavit filed on behalf of Sri Sanjeev Agarwal on 23.3.2022, the order dated 2.8.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.1351 of 2021 filed on behalf of the review-applicant has been brought on record in the Public Interest Litigation.
29. Thus, it is evident that Sri Sanjeev Agarwal was not only representing the trust, but he was also representing the review-applicant herein and in view thereof, I do not find any substance in the submission of the review-applicant that the review-applicant got prejudiced as it was not made a party in the Public Interest Litigation.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to review the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022 and, therefore, the same is rejected. However, no order as to costs.
31. The District Magistrate, Hardoi and all authorities are directed to implement the judgement and order dated 5.7.2022 under review within a period of fifteen days from today.
( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) Order Date :- 10, November, 2022 Rao/-