Court No. - 29 Civil Misc. Review Application No. 98398 of 2010 In Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23579 of 1997 Petitioner :- Yamaha Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. & Another Respondent :- Chief Executive Officer & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pradeep Kumar Respondent Counsel :- U.S. Awasthi,S.C.,S.G. Husnain Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Singh,J.
The delay in filing the review application is condoned.
We have heard Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar for the review petitioner.
Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents. Sri
Ramendra Pratap Singh appears for New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar.
The petitioner has sought the review of our judgment dated
25.1.2010. It is stated that the findings that the land is
recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records and that
the petitioner’s society had never applied and was recorded
as owner of land in the revenue record, is factually incorrect.
Sri Sharma submits that the petitioner’s society is a society
of employees of a public limited company viz., Yamaha
Motor Limited, which is situate in Surajpur.The society was
formed to undertake the developments of the dwelling
houses for its members, who are working in the company.
The Society is actually fulfilling one of the objects of the
authority viz., building residential accommodation for the
workers near their work place. He submits that the revenue
records beginning from 1404 to 1417 Fasli corresponding to
the years 1997 to 2010, were annexed with the writ petition.
The first writ petition was filed in the year 1992 (writ petition
No. 37058 of 1992), the second writ petition was filed in the
year 1993 (writ petition No. 666 of 1993), the third writ
petition was filed in 1996 (writ petition No. 19284 of 1996)
and the present writ petition was filed in the year 1997.
We have checked up the pleadings and the annexures.The
revenue records were not annexed to any of the writ
petitions to establish that the land was recorded as ‘abadi’
land, and was mutated in the name of Society or its
members. Further there is nothing to show that the
petitioners had applied for permission before raising
constructions to the NOIDA. The orders rejecting their lay
out plan dated 23.6.1997 were also not challenged by the
petitioners and had become final.
There is no error, on the face of the record in our judgment.
The petitioner has not given any good reasons as to why the
revenue records could not be filed or were not made
available after exercising due diligence on the part of the
petitioner.
The review application is rejected.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
nethra