ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 8434-8435 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 17, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8434-8435 OF 2011

ROSHAN LAL                                                      Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                                         Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    The appellant has approached this Court challenging the  order  passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Review  Application
No. 136 of 2010 in CWP No. 10748 of 2008.  The  order  dated  09.07.2010  is
reproduced as follows :-
"After hearing learned counsel for the  review-applicant  and  perusing  the
averments made in the application, we find that no ground for reviewing  our
order has been made out.
Accordingly, the review application is dismissed."
 2.   There is a background for the review application.  The  appellant  had
been before this Court challenging the impugned  Judgment  dated  27.01.2010
of the High Court and this Court in SLP (C) No. 5654 of 2010 by order  dated
08.03.2010, passed the following order :-
"After  arguing  the  case  for  some  time,  learned  senior  counsel   for
petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw  this
petition with liberty to file an application for review of the  order  under
challenge on the ground that the plea of discrimination raised  by  him  has
not been considered by the High Court.
      The request of the learned senior  counsel  is  accepted  and  Special
Leave Petition is dismissed as  withdrawn  with  liberty  in  terms  of  the
prayer made."

3.    After noticing that despite the said background, the  High  Court  has
not gone into the question of availability of other lands, this Court  while
issuing notice on 06.05.2011, passed the following order :-
      "Delay condoned.
      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
      The writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the  acquisition
of his land was dismissed by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  on
27.01.2010.  Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5654 of 2010 filed  by  him  was
dismissed  as  withdrawn  with  liberty  to  seek  review  of  order   dated
27.01.2010.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed detailed petition under  Order
47 Rule 1 for review of the order passed by the High Court.  The  petitioner
averred that 135 kanals 8 marlas belonging to  the  Horticulture  Department
and 125  kanals  5  marlas  belonging  to  PUDA  were  available  for  being
developed as residential colony by Faridkot  Improvement  Trust.   The  High
Court has, without adverting  to  the  averments  contained  in  the  review
petition, dismissed the same by two lines order.
      Issue  notice,  returnable  in  12  weeks.   Dasti,  in  addition,  is
permitted.  Issue notice on the petitioners's prayer for interim  relief  as
well.
      In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status  quo  as
it is obtaining today.  This would necessarily mean that the  parties  shall
not change the existing character of the property or alienate  the  same  to
any othre person in any manner whatsoever.
      A copy of this order be served upon the  respondents  along  with  the
notice."

4.    Though we have heard the learned counsel on both sides for some  time,
we  are  of  the  view  that  the  High  Court  should  have  addressed  the
submissions made by the appellant in the  review  petition,  some  of  which
have  been  noted  in  the  order  dated  06.05.2011,  as  extracted  above.
Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court  in  the
review petition and request the High Court to address the issues  raised  in
the review petition regarding the availability of alternate  land  belonging
to the Government and other public authorities and pass a speaking order  in
the review petition.
5.    We request the High Court to pass the order, as  above,  expeditiously
and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production  of
a copy of this Judgment before the High Court.
6.    In view of the above, these civil appeals  are  disposed  of  with  no
order as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                   [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

      New Delhi;
      February 17, 2016.