2005 (7) TMI 700 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Review application under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC for review of order dated 4th February, 2004.
2. Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the review application.
3. Application under Section 151 of the CPC for staying the operation of the judgment and maintaining status quo.
4. Writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India for quashing acquisition proceedings and alternative relief.
5. Disposal of writ petition and subsequent review sought on legality of acquisition proceedings and property demolition.
6. Compliance with statutory provisions of Land Acquisition Act and Rehabilitation Policy.
7. Respondents' contention on compensation payment, possession, and legality of review application.
8. Legal principles governing review jurisdiction and limitations under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Bar on review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Limitation Act.
10. Grounds for dismissal of review application and direction for compliance with Division Bench judgment.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC seeking review of an order dated 4th February, 2004. The application also includes a request for condensation of delay under the Limitation Act. Additionally, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed for staying the operation of the judgment and maintaining status quo.

2. A writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India was filed to quash acquisition proceedings and seek alternative relief. The petition raised concerns about the acquisition process violating statutory mandates and sought allocation of an alternative site due to livelihood deprivation.

3. The judgment addresses the disposal of the writ petition and subsequent review application focusing on the legality of acquisition proceedings and property demolition without adherence to statutory provisions. It highlights the petitioner's contention on irregularities committed by the respondents and non-adherence to the Rehabilitation Policy.

4. Respondents argued regarding compensation payment, possession, and the legality of the review application. They emphasized that the possession had been taken, compensation paid, and raised concerns about the petitioner's approach of seeking a rehearing on the same grounds.

5. The judgment delves into legal principles governing review jurisdiction and limitations under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, citing relevant case laws to establish the limited scope of review and the necessity for errors to be apparent on the face of the record.

6. It also discusses the bar on the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the Limitation Act, emphasizing the importance of filing within the prescribed time limit and the necessity for valid reasons for condonation of delay.

7. Ultimately, the review application was dismissed due to lack of merit, beyond the purview of provisions, and being time-barred. However, a direction was issued for compliance with the Division Bench judgment regarding the allotment of alternative plots, emphasizing the need for expeditious action by the respondents.