HOTEL GURU PRERANA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR vs STATE OF GUJARAT, THROUGH SPECIAL SECRETARY & ORS.

Present application has been preferred by the applicant herein? original petitioner to review / recall the judgment and order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.09.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1624 of 2006, by which, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.853 of 1991 for the reasons stated in the said common judgment and order.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which is sought to be reviewed/ recalled, Special Leave to Appeal was preferred before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court has disposed of said Special Leave Petition by observed as under:

"Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. However, the petitioner will be at liberty seek review of the order of the High Court if so advised and thereafter approach this Court once again, if so required. The special leave petition is disposed of."

2.1. That thereafter, present application has been preferred.

Present review application has been preferred mainly on the ground that in para 7.8 of the judgment, the Division Bench of this Court recorded that advocate for the applicant fairly conceded that there is no further construction on the land in question. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that as such there was already a construction on the land in question and said construction was existing since long and therefore, it was stated that there is no further construction on the land in question. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that however an impression is being gathered from the reading of the para 7.8 that there is no construction over the land in question. It is submitted that as such

there was already construction on the disputed land in question, for which, the permission for construction of structure was granted on 1988 and structure was standing since 1989. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the applicant that the construction was already there since long if the land on which, the construction is constructed is required to be returned, the applicant shall suffer loss.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the entire judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which is sought to be reviewed / recalled, we are of the opinion that as such on the aforesaid ground, the entire judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is not required to be reviewed / recalled. Whatever the submissions were made, have been considered in extenso by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court recorded that the applicant has fairly conceded that there was no further construction on the land, which is as such is factually correct. The Division Bench of this Court did not consider and / or meant that there was no construction at all on the land in question. There was no question of gathering such impression as now is apprehended. Transfer in favour of applicant is found to be absolutely illegal and against the public policy and against all norms and the valuable land was found to be disposed of without following any procedure and / or without auction and ultimately loss to the public exchequer. It is also required to be noted that as such the structure on the land in question is not as such use for the hotel and it is used for the go?down purpose for keeping the goods etc. No case is made out to review and / or recall the order. The second ground on which, the detailed judgment and order passed by this Court is sought to be reviewed and / recalled is that the reservation for "pilgrim" was lifted. However, it is required to be noted that as such, no such submissions

were made at the time of hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal. Even the document which is now produced was not there on record. Altogether a new case is tried to be made out. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by this Court is not required to be recalled. No other submissions have been made.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no case is made out to review and / or recall the detailed the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Whatever submissions have been made, the same have been dealt with and considered in extenso and after giving cogent reasons, Letters Patent Appeal has been disposed of. Under the circumstance, the present application is dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.