Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
Jagminder Pal Singh And Ors – Appellants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority And Anr - Respondents
W.P.(C) 15059 of 2022, Review Pet. 66 of 2023 and CM Appl. 11308 of 2023
Decided on : 07-03-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda, Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Inderdeep Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Nihal Singh,
Advocates, Ms. Vaishali Tiwari, Advocates and Mr.Vivek Chaudhary

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of review is limited and a review application can only be entertained if there is error apparent on the face of the record. Additionally, a judgment or order may be open to review when any new or important evidence is discovered, subject to certain conditions.

Headnote:
Review Petition - Condonation of Delay - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The judgment discusses the grounds for the review petition filed by the respondents/DDA under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Court in W.P.(C) 15059/2022. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the review petition and dismissed the review petition on the grounds that the factual errors pointed out by the DDA have been explained by the petitioners and the DDA failed to point out any factor for review of the order dated 12.01.2023.
Fact of the Case:

The respondents/DDA filed a review petition seeking review of the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Court in W.P.(C) 15059/2022. The review petition was based on the grounds of factual errors in the order under review.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the review petition and dismissed the review petition on the grounds that the factual errors pointed out by the DDA have been explained by the petitioners and the DDA failed to point out any factor for review of the order dated 12.01.2023.
Issues: The issues revolved around the factual errors in the order under review and the grounds for the review petition filed by the respondents/DDA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scope of review is limited and a review application can only be entertained if there is error apparent on the face of the record. The court also emphasized that a judgment or order may be open to review when any new or important evidence is discovered, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party who seeks review or could not be produced despite due diligence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the review petition and dismissed the review petition filed by the respondents/DDA.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

CM APPL. 11308/2023

1. This is an application filed on behalf of respondents/ DDA under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by this Court.

2. Considering the submissions made in the present application, the application is allowed and the delay of 21 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

3. Application is disposed of accordingly.

REVIEW PET. 66/2023

4. The present review petition has been filed on behalf of respondents/ DDA under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘) seeking review of order dated 12.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 15059/2022.

5. It is the case on behalf of the DDA that the present review petition has been filed in view of the liberty as granted by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 10.02.2023 in LPA No. 106/2023. By the said judgment dated 10.02.2023, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the DDA against the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by this Court.

6. The present review petition is premised on the ground that there are certain factual errors which had crept in the order under review as according to the DDA, the petitioners have not brought forth correct facts before this Court.

7. It is urged on behalf of the DDA that the present writ petition has been filed by persons who are not the owners of the shops in question. He submits that M/s Bhatia Chemical Works is the original lessee, whose lease has already been cancelled by the DDA. Further, he submits that error has crept in order under review, as Jasbir Kaur and Sukhvinder Kaur are not the petitioners before this Court, whereas in the said order, it has wrongly been mentioned that the aforesaid Jasbir Kaur and Sukhvinder Kaur are petitioners in the present case. Further, attention of this Court has been drawn to the letter dated 05.05.2022 issued by the DDA, which has been attached with the review petition, wherein it has been submitted that the rejection of the restoration application was issued to four persons named therein on the ground that the breaches/ misuse still continue. Thus, it is submitted that the application for restoration of the Lease Deed in respect of the plot in question i.e. C-196/1, Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase II was rejected.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not filed any chain of events claiming their right of ownership from M/s Bhatia Chemical Works, the original Lessee.

9. The next ground as taken by the respondents/ DDA is that the Circulars dated 02.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 issued by the DDA for restoration have been kept in abeyance. In the said circulars, it is stipulated that if lease has been determined and allotment has been cancelled on account of unauthorized construction and misuse, the lease will be restored without insisting on removal of breaches and conversion will be allowed subject to payment of all penal charges. It is submitted that by office noting dated 02.05.2012, the said circulars dated 02.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 have been kept in abeyance after approval from the Lieutenant Governor. It is submitted that the said note with respect to the Circulars dated 02.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 having been kept in abeyance had not been filed inadvertently by the DDA earlier. The said note has been filed for the first time along with the Review Petition.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on advance notice, on the other hand, strongly refutes the submissions as made on behalf of the DDA. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents which have been filed on behalf of the petitioners before this Court. The said documents contain an Agreement to Sell by one Sh. S.K. Choudhary in favour of Smt. S