Hima Kohli, J. (Oral):--

RP No. 500/2009 & CM No. 10216/2013 (for condonation of delay)

1. A Review Petition has been filed by the respondent/revenue authorities praying inter alia for review of the order dated 7.1.2009. Accompanying the said application is an application for condonation of delay of 278 days.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners had filed a petition praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent/revenue authorities to undertake demarcation of the land situated in Khasra No. 656 & 657 in Village Sarangpur, New Delhi, in accordance with the records available.

3. On 5.3.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that he had made several representations for demarcation, but without any success. On the aforesaid date, notice was issued in the writ petition and a counter affidavit was directed to be filed by the respondents. However, the counter affidavit was not filed. On 25.8.2008, learned counsel for the respondent/revenue authorities had stated that the counter affidavit was filed two days earlier, but the same was not on record. Counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that he had not received a copy of the same. On the assumption that the counter affidavit would be placed on record, directions were issued to the petitioners to file a rejoinder and the matter was adjourned to 7.1.2009.

4. On 7.1.2009, counsel for the respondent/revenue authorities submitted that he had no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners for undertaking demarcation of Khasra No. 656-657 situated in village Sarangpur, New Delhi, being allowed. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent/revenue authorities, the writ petition was disposed of with directions issued to the respondent/revenue authorities to carry out demarcation of the subject Khasra numbers in the presence of the petitioners after giving written intimation to them of the date fixed for the said purpose.

5. Subsequently, the respondent/revenue authorities filed two applications, i.e., CM No. 16403/2009 for seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition and CM No. 16404/2009 for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing CM No. 16403/2009. Vide order dated 11.11.2011, CM No. 16404/2009 was allowed and the delay in re-filing CM No. 16403/2009 was condoned. As regards CM No. 16403/2009, whereunder the respondent/revenue authorities sought condonation of delay of 278 days in filing the review application, the same was adjourned to enable learned counsel for the respondent/revenue authorities to file a better affidavit in support of the averments made in the said application.

6. Subsequently, in July, 2013, the respondent/revenue authorities filed CM No. 10216/2013 praying inter alia for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. On 16.7.2013, notice was issued to the nonapplicants/ petitioners on the said application. On 17.1.2014, counsel for the petitioners had entered appearance and sought time to file a reply to the application. However, reply was not filed despite the last opportunity granted to the petitioners, vide order dated 10.3.2014, passed by the Registrar. On 22.4.2014, as learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments made by him in CM No. 977/2014 may be treated as a reply to the review application, the review petition and CM No. 10216/2013 have been placed before this Court for arguments.

7. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent/revenue authorities, states that after the order dated 7.1.2009 was passed, efforts were made by the department to undertake demarcation of the subject land, but as the area was completely built-up, objections were raised by the residents to the demarcation proceedings. In these circumstances, the respondent/revenue authorities filed the review petition on 12.11.2009.

8. In the meantime, the Tehsildar, who was dealing with the case, was suspended on 12.11.2009 and as the facts of the present case was in his kn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document