Shobha Ram & Another vs State Of H.P. & Others

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 06.07.2023 in CWPIL no.59 of 2022.

2) The said PIL had been filed by the 8th respondent herein against the petitioners and others alleging encroachment over Government land/village path by the review petitioners of land in Khasra nos.587/198 & 199, Mauza & Mohal Shilli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

3) It was also alleged in the said PIL by the 8th respondent that the review petitioners were damaging the public path, on which, tiles were fixed with the funds of the Gram Panchayat.

4) Ultimately, after considering the stands taken by the petitioners, the 8th respondent and the official respondents, on 22.05.2023, this Court directed the District Revenue Officer, Solan, to personally carry out demarcation with the field staff with respect to entire Khasra no.199, measuring 01-15 bighas, identify the portion which was acquired by the Government for setting up a Pump House, i.e. area measuring 1 Bigha & 8 Biswas, and further report whether any encroachment has been made over this portion of the land and by whom.

5) Thereafter, such survey was conducted and the survey report was filed on 01.06.2023 by the District Revenue Officer, Solan showing that an extent of 11 Square Karam area was found to be encroached by the review petitioner no.1. The said report also noted that everybody had accepted the survey report except the review petitioners.

6) The said report was confronted to the counsel for review petitioners on 26.06.2023, but they insisted that the report cannot be accepted and denied any encroachment as was found in the said report.

7) This Court, however, rejected the said contention and on 06.07.2023 allowed the PIL and granted four weeks time to the review petitioners to remove encroachment found on Khasra no.199, measuring 11 Square Karam, as determined by the District Revenue Officer, Solan and as mentioned in the sketch annexed to the report. In default, this Court directed respondents no.1 to 6 in the CWPIL to remove the said encroachment with the assistance of respondent no.7, in accordance with law. The review petitioners were also directed to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to respondent no.8.

8) Challenging the same the instant review Petition is filed by the review Petitioners.

9) Review is sought of the said order by the review petitioners herein by engaging a new counsel by name Mr. B.R. Kashyap, who had not appeared when the CWPIL no.59 of 2022 was decided on 06.07.2023, at which point of time, the review petitioners had engaged Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate.

10) Reliance is placed now on two previous demarcations, including a sketch dt. 08.08.2022 signed by the then District Officer, Solan, and it is alleged that without verifying the record properly, the District Revenue Officer, Solan, had conducted the demarcation and submitted the report. Other contentions which were not argued at the time when the CWPIL was decided, are also raised.

11) The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Another (1997) 9 SCC 736 has deprecated the practice of filing review petitions by changing counsel and held that review petition is not and should not be an attempt for rehearing the matter again on merit. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Om Parkash vs. Suresh Kumar. (2020) 13 SCC 188

12) In our considered opinion, the instant review application filed by the review petitioners herein by engaging a new counsel and raising new factual contentions, is a sheer abuse of process of Court and cannot be entertained.

13) Accordingly, the Review Petition fails and is dismissed.

14) Pending miscellaneous application is also disposed of.