(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Applicant-original petitioner seeks review of order dated 22.3.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.14 of 2010. By such order, Division Bench had confirmed the decision of learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.4249 of 2009.
2. Applicant-
original petitioner seeks regularization of his occupation on the Government land. Before learned Single Judge, Nagar Palika pointed out that the applicant is an encroacher and that the land is required for public purpose and that the applicant is doing business on a road which leads to S.T. Depot. Regularization would, thus, cause inconvenience.
3. Division Bench confirmed the decision of learned Single Judge, observing that, applicant is an encroacher of the Government land. He cannot claim regularization in absence of any scheme. Bench also noted the specific plea of the respondents that the applicant was an encroacher on the land of the road going to the State Transport Bus stand and that he was using the premises for commercial purpose.
4. After having failed before this Court, applicant had approached the Apex Court, but withdrew his S.L.P. for filing review petition. While permitting him to do so, the Apex Court observed that, "However, it is made clear that this order shall not be construed as a mandate of this Court to the High Court to entertain the review petition and if such petition is filed, the High Court shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law."
5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, we see no reasons to review the order passed previously. Division Bench had confirmed the view of learned Single Judge after recording reasons. Counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that occupations of other similarly situated persons have been regularized. Such material was not presented earlier. Firstly, no parity can be claimed on the basis of regularization of other encroachments. Secondly, details of regularization and purpose for which such regularization has been granted and location of the land where such regularization is allowed, are not available. On that basis also, the question of parity does not arise.
6. In the result, this review petition is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top