Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1046
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, J.
RAJENDER SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS – Respondent
R.P. No.105/2014 in W.P.(C) 431/2014
Decided On : 02.07.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Dhiraj Singh, Advocates with petitioner in person.
For the Respondents:Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, proxy counsel for Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Ms. Archna Gaur, Adv. for R-3/UOI.
The court has the authority to review and reconsider its previous orders in light of new evidence or circumstances, and can direct the reconsideration of a case for alternative relief based on equitable principles.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Land Allotment - The court reviewed the order dismissing the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court decision and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for alternative plot allotment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a review petition seeking reconsideration of the order dismissing the writ petition, highlighting the recommendation of an alternative plot for the petitioner's sibling by the Recommendation Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case should be reconsidered in light of the recommendation for an alternative plot allotment to the petitioner's sibling, and directed the respondents to place the petitioner's case afresh before the Recommendation Committee for reconsideration.
Issues: Review of order dismissing writ petition, consideration of petitioner's case for alternative plot allotment, failure to receive instructions from the department by respondents' counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the recommendation of an alternative plot allotment to the petitioner's sibling by the Recommendation Committee, and the failure of the respondents' counsel to receive instructions from the department.
Final Decision: The review petition was disposed of with directions issued to the respondents to place the petitioner's case afresh before the Recommendation Committee for reconsideration, and the decision taken by the Committee to be communicated to the petitioner.
R.P. No.105/2014 (by the petitioner u/O XLVII R-1 r/w Sec.151 CPC for review of the order dated 21.1.2014)
1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for reviewing the order dated 21.1.2014, whereunder the writ petition was dismissed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘DDA & Another vs. Jai Singh Kanwar & Ors.’ passed in Civil Appeal No.8289/2010.
2. Notice was issued on this application on 15.4.2014, whereafter pleadings were completed. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent no. 1 and 2, the petitioner has pointed out that though his case had not been recommended by the Land & Building Department for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land, the case of Shri Satvir Singh, one of the siblings of the petitioner, who is similarly placed, was duly recommended by the Committee constituted by the Land and Building Department, as would be apparent from the minutes of the meeting dated 1.10.2014 (Annexure-P-11).
3. On 10.4.2015, counsel for the respondents No.1 & had sought time to obtain instructions. Today, learned counsel for the said respondents states that she has not received any instructions from the department despite repeated requests made to that effect.
4. Having regard to the fact that minutes of the meeting dated 1.10.2014 of the Recommendation Committee constituted by the Land & Building Department for recommendation of alternative plot clearly reflects that Shri Satvir S/o Hari Singh (at Sr. No.659), a sibling of the petitioner, who is similarly placed as the petitioner herein, was held entitled to an alternative allotment of a plot measuring 250 sq. yards, apart from the compensation received by him, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be treated on a different footing.
5. Accordingly, the present review petition is disposed of with directions issued to the respondents to place the petitioner’s case afresh before the Recommendation Committee for reconsideration in accordance with law. The decision taken by the Committee shall be communicated by the respondent no. 1 and 2 to the petitioner
preferably on or before 30.9.2015.
6. If the grievance of the petitioner still survives, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies in accordance with law.
7. The review petition is disposed of.
