Gopal Dutt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This application is now filed seeking recall of the order passed by us in WPPIl No. 94 of 2012 dated 25.03.2019.

Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, entered appearance on 15.05.2019 long after the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.03.2019. The contention urged on behalf of the applicant, by Sri Sidhartha Singh, learned counsel, is that the earlier counsel, who appeared on behalf of the respondent (applicant in the recall application) was elevated as a Judge; thereafter another counsel, who appeared on his behalf, also became the Government Counsel, and could no longer appear on behalf of the applicant; and, in such circumstances, the case of the applicant was not presented to this Court, resulting in the order, recall of which is now being sought, being passed.

Any action to be taken, for the failure of the counsel to intimate the applicant that he could no longer appear in the matter, since he was appointed as a Government Counsel, can only be taken up before the Bar Council of the State on a complaint being lodged against him by the applicant. That would, however, not, by itself, require the order passed by us on 25.03.2019 being recalled. An application, for recall of the earlier order, would not be ordered for the mere asking. Such an application would be entertained by the Court only if the order, recall of which is sought, suffers from lack of jurisdiction or is vitiated by fraud or the like. It is not even contended before us that the said order suffers from any such infirmity. Even otherwise, Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel, is not in a position to show how the applicant can be said to be aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2019, as the said order merely directs the official respondents to put the alleged encroachers on notice, give them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereafter pass a reasoned order, and, if the authorities are satisfied that the persons in possession of the subject land have no title thereupon and are mere encroachers, to then take steps to have them evicted from the subject land.

The contentions, now sought to be raised in the recall application, can as well be urged by the applicant in the reply submitted by him to the notice issued by the authorities concerned since they are obligated, in terms of the order passed by us in WPPIL No. 94 of 2012 dated 25.03.2019, to pass a reasoned order which would require them to deal with the contentions raised by the applicant in his reply to the show cause notice. If, as is now contended before us, the applicant has title over the subject land and is not an encroacher, the order passed by us on 25.03.2019 sufficiently protects him, as it is only if the authorities are satisfied that the applicant has no title over the subject land, and they are mere encroachers, can they thereafter take steps to evict the encroachers from the subject land.

The apprehension expressed by Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel, that the applicant may be evicted the very next day after the order is passed, and he may not be in a position to avail his judicial remedies questioning the said order, is also unfounded. In any event, it would suffice to clarify that the steps which may be taken, to have them evicted from the subject land, shall only be in accordance with law.

Subject to the aforesaid modification, we see no reason to entertain the application seeking recall of the order dated 25.03.2019. The recall application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Needless to state that the applicant would be entitled to avail his judicial remedies against the order, if any, passed against him by the authorities.