(Made by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J) Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 7.
2. When the writ appeal came up before this Court, the learned counsel who appeared for the appellants in the writ appeal, sought one month time to vacate and handover possession of the property in question. Therefore, this Court granted one month time to the appellants to find out accommodation elsewhere and to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property in question. But, the appellants, instead of vacating the premises, resorted to file a review application with a different counsel. It is nothing but abuse of process of law.
3. The chequered history of the applicants, who are appellants in the writ appeal, would be evident from a perusal of the order of the learned single Judge. The applicants, who are squatting on the property illegally for more than ten years, was granted a time of one month to vacate and hand over the premises, on humanitarian basis, considering the request made by the earlier counsel. But, the applicants have chosen to file this review application, instead of vacating the premises, only to drag on the proceedings, especially when the first round of litigation was already concluded by the Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
4. The learned counsel now appearing for the applicants attempted to teach philosophy and humanity to this Court. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in R.D.Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma [AIR 2000 SC 2912], Director, Horticulture, Punjab v. Jagjivan Parshad [(2008) 5 SCC 539] and State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish [(2011) 8 SCC 670].
5. Indisputably, the action of the applicants in engaging a different counsel and filing this review application is only to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, it is high time for the Government to initiate proceedings to evict the applicants from their illegal occupation of the property in question, with police protection. Thus, we do not find any reason to entertain this review application and accordingly, this review application is dismissed at the SR stage itself.