Sandeep Sharma, J
(Through Video Conferencing)
1. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that review petition having been filed by the petitioner is
pending adjudication before Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla and same has been listed for final hearing on 8th January, 2021.
2. Mr. Naresh Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent, fairly states that aforesaid review petition filed by the petitioner shall be, positively,
decided, on the next date of hearing, taking note of all the document produced on record by the petitioner.
3. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of, at this stage with the direction to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla to
decided the review petition pending adjudication by the next date of hearing, i.e. 8.1.2021.
4. Needless to say, competent authority while deciding the review petition shall not only afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, but also
keep in mind that learned District Judge while remanding the case back to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, has categorically
observed in para-10 of the order at pages-50-51, as under:-
“the perusal of the record shows that the Commissioner, M.C. Shimla, in the impugned order has held that appellant has failed to submit the revised
plan, whereas vide letter dated 11.05.2000, bearing the date of receipt as 12.05.2000 is available on the file of the M.C. Shimla at page No. 91.
According to the appellant, the revised plan has been submitted this letter.â€
5. Repeatedly, the case of the petitioner has not been considered on the ground of non-filing of revised plan, which otherwise appears to be filed in the
records of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, as has been observed by learned District Judge in para-10 supra. Besides above, careful perusal of the
order, passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla (available at page 35 of the paper book) suggests that petitioner R.K. Sud submitted a
revised plan, which was taken on record.
6. Having taken note of the aforesaid orders dated 23.09.2020 and 23.4.2008, passed by learned District Judge as well as Commissioner Municipal
Corporation, Shimla, this Court hopes and trusts that Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla while deciding the review petition would not reject
the claim of the petitioner on the ground of non- submission of revised map. Petitioner, if still remains aggrieved, would be at liberty to approach this
Court by filing appropriate proceedings.
7. Mr. Naresh Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent undertakes to apprise Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla with regard to
passing of instant order, enabling him to do the needful within the stipulated time.
