Court No. - 30 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 275 of 2010 Petitioner :- Moti Lal Goel And Another Respondent :- Ghaziabad Development Authority And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Mahendra Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
RE: Correction/Modification application
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that some factual mistakes
have crept in the judgment which requires correction. If these mistakes will
remain in the judgment the revisionist would not derive any benefit of the
judgment.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
The factual mistakes have to be corrected. Let the order rendered in this Court
dated 25.5.2010 be read as under.
“Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. Nalini
Kumar Sharma has accepted notice on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development
Authority.
Through this revision under section 115 C.P.C., an interim order passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad trial court by which an
interim application has been dismissed has been challenged. The revisionist
sought framing of an additional issue that the directions issued by the Board
of Revenue and the State Government are binding on the concerned
authorities of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and other local bodies.
Compliance of Board of Revenue’s order and Government Order dated
30.6.2009, 13.4.2010 in respect of sanctioning the map plan, submitted to the
Development Authority has also been sought. The other factual and legal
aspects were also canvassed before the Court.The revisionist is the Bhumidhar
since 1359F in respect of plot no.906 & 914. He has purchased the plot
no.908 by registered sale deed.
The revisionist filed a suit for permanent injunction and seeking sanctioning
of map. He has also approached the Board of Revenue and the State
Government. The Board of Revenue had passed a specific detailed order
dated 30.6.2009 in favour of the applicant. The State Government, i.e.,
Secretary Avas, Lucknow had also issued detailed directions to the local
body, G.D.A. Etc. vide order dated 13.4.2010 for sanctioning the map
submitted by the land owner for commercial or other purpose.
The court below declined to frame additional issue and consider the above
development, hence giving cause of action to the applicant to file the present
revision.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned Standing Counsel
and perused the record.
There are two Government Orders available on record which were issued by
the Board of Revenue U.P. on 30.6.2009 and the State Government on
13.4.2010. In addition to this the order sheets dated 3.8.1997, 20.8.1997 and
28.8.1997 maintained by G.D.A. clearly shows that .G.D.A. exchanged the
land of the revisionist. However, later G.D.A. sold the abovenoted land to
third parties. This action of G.D.A. is unwarranted and hit by Section 52 of
Transfer of Property Act. The revisionist is liable to be restored in possession
of the land. The order passed by the Board of Revenue on 30.6.2009 and State
Government’s order dated 13.4.2010 are specific and clear. The directions
contained in these orders have to be complied with by the concerned local
body ,i.e., Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and all the
concerned authorities and parties. As per provisions contained in section 41 of
the aforesaid Act, it is incumbent upon the authority or Vice Chairman of the
Development Authority to carry out the directions issued by the State
Government.
The above said Board of Revenue’s order and Government Order have already
been considered and dealt with by this Court in its judgment and order dated
20.5.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 263 of 2010- Lajja Ram & others Vs.
Man Singh since deceased and others.
In view of the above quoted statutory provisions and the directions contained
in the Government Order dated 13.4.2010, the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad
Development Authority is directed to ensure compliance of the directions
contained in the letter sent by the Board of Revenue on 30.6.2009 and the
Govt. vide G.O. dated 13.4.2010. The directions are explicit and clear and
have to be complied with by all the concerned authorities including the
respondents herein. Since the issues raised are legal issues and interpretation
of the aforesaid provisions has been sought for , the revision deserves to be
allowed. The concerned authorities including respondents, trial court shall
take notice of the above and ensure compliance of the aforesaid directions
contained in the above order dated 30.6.2009 issued by the Board of Revenue,
U.P. and State Government in its Government Order dated 13.4.2010. The
trial court is directed to pass suitable orders for restoration of possession to
the revisionist as per Commission report dated 29.10.2001 (annesure 7). The
revision is allowed. All the necessary consequences shall follow.
Order Date :- 12.7.2010
Bhaskar