ORDER :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

CM No. 706/2026

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the review petition against the judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court.

2. Notice. Notice waived by Mr. Paras Gupta, learned counsel representing respondents. He submits that he has no objection in case delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

3. For the reasons set out in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 59 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

4. Application stands disposed of.

5. Main Appeal is taken on board.

RP No. 12/2026

1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a review of the judgment dated 15.10.2025 rendered by this Court in LPA No. 131/2024, primarily on the following grounds:

A. Because this Hon'ble Court in the Judgment dt. 15.10.2025 has erred in holding that only 23 Kanals and 5 Marlas was allotted to FCI after the land acquisition in the year 1976. In fact, a perusal of the letter dt. 20.1.1977 shows that possession of a total area of 44 Kanals and 5 Marlas was handed over to FCI by the authorities after the land acquisition. This was also clarified in the affidavit dt. 12.12.2023 filed by the Appellants. It is submitted that the finding that only 23 Kanals and 5 marlas was allotted to FCI amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed. In fact, in the letter dt. 20.1.1977 two sets of land acquired are mentioned, the first set totaling at 20 Kanals and 16 Marlas and the second set totaling at 23 Kanals and 13 Marlas totaling at 44 Kanals and 5 Marlas. This was also clarified by the Appellants through the affidavit filed on 12.12.2023.

B. Because this Hon'ble Court erred in upholding the Judgment of the Writ Court and in not noticing that the Respondents who claim to have purchased the land in the year 1992 through a registered sale deed dt. 23.10.1992 official translation of which was filed by them shows that neither are the boundaries of the land purchased by them mentioned in the sale deed nor is there any indication as to the Khasra number of the land allegedly purchased by them. Even the extent of the land purchased has not been mentioned in the sale deed and the alleged sale deed seems to be a sham document created only to raise false claims against FCI. Relying on the said sham document for allowing the Writ Petition, it is submitted, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and the Judgment dismissing the LPA is liable to be reviewed for this reason.

C. Because the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court is vitiated due to an error apparent on the face of the record in upholding the claim of forcible occupation of the land by FCI in the absence of any allegations as to how the land was forcibly occupied by FCI in the year 2000 and in the absence of any contemporary evidence supporting the allegations in terms of any complaint lodged with any independent authority or any FIR lodged or any protest made by the Respondents. In case there had been any such incident of forcible occupation, the time and place and the date on which it would have taken place would be known to the Respondents and their failure to give any particulars falsifies their entire stand more particularly when they have changed the year of alleged forcible occupation from 1993 to 2000.

D. Because the Judgment is also vitiated due to an error that Court not considered the affidavit dt. 12.12.2023 filed by FCI stating that the boundary wall constructed in the year 1978-79 has remained unaltered except for repairs and maintenance done periodically. Without any change in the boundary wall there can be no question of any further encroachment of land by FCI. This Hon'ble Court failed to notice that there is no description in the Writ Petition as to how forcible occupation of the land was done by FCI without altering its boundary wall and there are no details provided regarding the alleged