IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101+102 RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 Date of Decision :25.08.2025 Chander Bhushan Anand ...Review/Applicant Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 Devinder Kumar Singla ...Review/Applicant Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for the reviewtiapplicant(s) (in both the petitions).

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate & Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondenttiU.T., Chandigarh.

* * *

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:20)

1. Present review applications have been filed for the review of the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding bunch of writ petitions i.e. CWPti4478ti2010 and other connected cases.

2. Learned counsel for the reviewtiapplicant(s) argues that the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court needs to be reviewed as no separate notice was served under Section 8tiA of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, ‘1952 Act’) or under the rules framed thereunder.

2. Learned counsel for the reviewtiapplicant(s) further argues that though Rule 9tiA of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, (for short, '1960 Rules’) has been noticed by the Court but the same has not been dealt with by the Court while passing the order dated

26.03.2025.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the reviewtiapplicant(s) and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

4. It may be noticed that after noticing Section 8tiA of the 1952 Act and Rule 9tiA of the 1960 Rules, the findings have also been given by the Court. The fact as to whether a particular notice was given under Section 8tiA of the 1952 Act, has been dealt with by the Court even while taking into consideration the challenge to levy of penalty upon misuse.

5. Further, review of the order is only permissible in case there is any incorrect fact which has been relied upon by the Court to arrive at a conclusion whereas, no such incorrect fact has been pointed out by the learned Court for the reviewtiapplicant(s) before this Court rather the endeavour of the learned Court for the reviewtiapplicant(s) is to reargue the case so that this Court arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 26.03.2025, which is sought to be reviewed in the present review application, which cannot be allowed.

6. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the reviewtiapplicants cannot be allowed to retiargue the case as the review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:19) (cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:8)ti(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:29)(cid:31)(cid:8)(cid:26) (cid:8)!(cid:31)!"(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:12)#(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:8)$%(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)%(cid:7)#(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:5)&(cid:2)(cid:5) ’(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:7)#(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)#(cid:12)((cid:5)#(cid:12)#(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:8)!)(cid:16)(cid:31)!(cid:16)!(cid:31)!". Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:ti

5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are re