Page 1

1

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 :-

Page 2

2

"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Petition  is  dismissed  as  withdrawn  with  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withdrawn with liberty to seek review of

Page 3

3

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."

Page 4

4

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.