Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1023 (ALL)

Jai Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-04-13

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI

body2023
ORDER : C.M. Application No. 1 of 2022: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. The application is supported by an affidavit, in which reasons for delay have been explained sufficiently. 2. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay, if any, in moving review application is hereby condoned. Order on memo of Review Application: 3. The instant application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2019, passed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaspreet Singh in Writ (C) No. 13864 of 2019, with the following description of the array of parties: Jai Singh S/o K.S. Arya - Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Planning U.P. 2. Housing Commissioner, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad 3. Executive Engineer, Lucknow 4. Tej Narayan Soni - Opposite Parties 4. No Vakalatnama has been filed with the review application and in the index, it is mentioned that “Vakalatnama already on record.” Sri. Raj Vikram Singh Advocate had filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni in Writ (C) No. 13864 of 2019 on 03.01.2022 alongwith I.A. No. 22 of 2022, which was supported by an affidavit stating that earlier he had filed a modification application through Ms. Pushpila Bisht, Advocate and the matter was argued by Sri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, Senior Advocate; that the opposite party no. 4 had paid fee to both of them and now he wanted to file a review application, for which he has engaged Sri Raj Vikram Singh, Advocate. The Vakalatnama in favour of Sri. Raj Vikram Singh Advocate was filed when the Writ Petition as well as the subsequent review application filed by Jai Singh and an application for modification/recall of the order dated 31.08.2021 filed by the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni had already been decided and nothing was pending before this Court. 5. Sri. Jai Singh, who has wrongly been described as the petitioner in the Review Petition, raised a preliminary objection before this Court that he has not filed the review application and he has wrongly been described as the review applicant. 6. On 07.04.2022 Sri. Raj Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5. Sri. Jai Singh, who has wrongly been described as the petitioner in the Review Petition, raised a preliminary objection before this Court that he has not filed the review application and he has wrongly been described as the review applicant. 6. On 07.04.2022 Sri. Raj Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, had sought time to move an application to correct the array of parties. He filed an application for correction in the memo of parties seeking permission to mention the name of Tej Narayan Soni as applicant in the review application. The aforesaid application was allowed by means of an order dated 25.07.2022 and a direction was issued for carrying out the necessary corrections within ten days. However, the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni did not incorporate the corrections in the memo of the review application and the description of the petitioner, mentioned in the review petition is still Jai Singh. Even during hearing of the review application, when an objection to this effect was raised by Sri. Jai Singh, the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni did not make any prayer for extension of time granted to him for carrying out the necessary corrections in the array of parties. Therefore, the review application as framed, is liable to be rejected for non-prosecution by non-compliance of the order dated 25.07.2022. 7. However, we proceed to examine the review on its merits in the interest of justice. 8. The aforesaid Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner Jai Singh seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for demolition of the illegal constructions raised in the house of the opposite party no. 4 - Tej Narayan Soni. 9. The Avas Evam Vikas Parishad had filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition stating that some parts of the construction had been marked by the officials as compoundable and some other parts were marked as non-compoundable in the compounding map. The review applicant had submitted a compounding map and the Parishad had already indicated about the compoundable and non-compoundable portions of the structure. In case the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni fails to demolish the non-compoundable structure and pay the compounding fee, the Parishad will take suitable action against him. 10. The opposite party no. The review applicant had submitted a compounding map and the Parishad had already indicated about the compoundable and non-compoundable portions of the structure. In case the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni fails to demolish the non-compoundable structure and pay the compounding fee, the Parishad will take suitable action against him. 10. The opposite party no. 4 in the Writ Petition Tej Narayan Soni had put in appearance by filing a Vakalatnama executed in favour of Sri. Suresh Kumar Singh and Sri. Umesh Singh Advocates. Thereafter he had engaged Sri. Balkeshwar Srivastava and Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Advocates. He had filed a counter affidavit through Sri. Balkeshwar Srivastava, Advocate. 11. After taking into consideration the aforesaid pleadings, this Court had disposed off the Writ Petition by means of an order dated 29.08.2019 observing that the matter was being taken by the Parishad and at this stage, the Court was not inclined to pass any order or direction to demolish the portion which is non-compoundable and this Court had put on record its expectation that the Parishad will take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 12. The aforesaid order was challenged by Sri Jai Singh the petitioner in Writ (C) No. 13864 of 2019, by filing Review Application No. 153668 of 2019. The review application was filed with delay and the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni had filed an application for rejection of application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application an Application for dismissal of review application, through Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and a supplementary counter affidavit was also filed through the aforesaid Advocate. 13. The aforesaid review petition was dismissed by means of an order dated 31.08.2021 by holding that the order dated 29.08.2019 did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. However, while dismissing the review application this Court observed that once an undertaking had been given by the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni that he will remove the non-compoundable portion of the building which had been illegally constructed, then that undertaking shall be honored by him and he shall immediately remove the illegal constructions. This Court further observed that since the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni that he will remove the non-compoundable portion of the building which had been illegally constructed, then that undertaking shall be honored by him and he shall immediately remove the illegal constructions. This Court further observed that since the opposite party no. 4 has not removed the said construction, therefore, Avas Vikas Parishad shall immediately remove the illegal construction which is non-compoundable and no further opportunity shall be given to the opposite party no. 4 to remove the construction. Although, the review petition was dismissed by the aforesaid order, the Court directed that an action taken report be submitted before the Court. 14. On 16.09.2021, the opposite party no. 4 Sri. Tej Narayan Soni filed C.M.A. No. 120260 of 2021 through Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for modification/recall of the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in the Writ Petition, to the extent it directs the Awas Ewam Vikas Parishad to immediately remove the illegal construction which is non compoundable. 15. Subsequently the opposite party no. 4 engaged Ms. Pushpila Bisht Advocate, who assisted Sri. J.N. Mathur Senior Advocate. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid application for modification/recall of the order dated 31.08.2021, it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni that in the order dated 31.08.2021 it was provided that the unauthorized construction which can be removed, is to be removed, therefore, he has got the construction removed which could be removed and the portion of unauthorized construction which could not be removed, was not removed otherwise the entire building will collapse. 16. The aforesaid application for modification/recall of the order dated 31.08.2021 was rejected by means of an order dated 29.09.2021 by observing that “once an undertaking was given to remove the unauthorized construction and that unauthorized construction was not removed, the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad who is the overall controlling authority has been directed to remove the illegal construction. We do not filed any reasons to modify the order dated 31.08.2021 as we cannot permit any unauthorized construction to continue to exist.” 17. The opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2021 by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13769 of 2021. We do not filed any reasons to modify the order dated 31.08.2021 as we cannot permit any unauthorized construction to continue to exist.” 17. The opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2021 by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13769 of 2021. At the time of hearing for the aforesaid S.L.P., the learned counsel representing him submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that whatever could be demolished in terms of the undertaking given before the High Court, has already been demolished and an appropriate application will be moved before the High Court seeking modification. Subsequently, the aforesaid S.L.P. has been dismissed as withdrawn on 08.02.2022, without any liberty having been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for availing any other remedy. 18. During pendency of the aforesaid S.L.P. the instant application was been filed on 10.01.2022 by the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, through Sri Raj Vikram Singh, Advocate, seeking review of the order dated 29.08.2019. 19. In T.N. Electricity Board vs. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing successive applications after decision of the case and that too, by engaging different Counsel. The aforesaid judgment is being reproduced below: “1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-opposite party when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as “application for clarification” on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member, had held as under: “The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the ‘No Objection Certificate’ would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the review petition.” 2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. 3. The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 as it is an abuse of the process of court in derogation of healthy practice. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. 3. The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 as it is an abuse of the process of court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from today. If the amount is not paid, it should be recovered treating this direction as decree of the Court by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.” 20. In Review Petition Defective No. 281 of 2008 titled U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. versus Anil Kumar Mishra decided on 30.03.2012, this Court dismissed a review petition filed by a subsequently engaged counsel. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: “Shri Umesh Chandra, learned senior Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9 SCC 736 , the review petition is not maintainable as Shri Manoj Singh, Advocate who has filed the review petition was neither appeared as a counsel on behalf of the review petitioner nor argued on their behalf in the writ petition. So, the review petition is not maintainable, liable to be dismissed on the said ground. *** *** *** Applying the abovesaid settled proposition of law in the present case, I don't find any good ground and reason taken by review petitioner in the matter in question for review of judgment and order dated 3.12.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 1827 (SS) of 1997, and also in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9 SCC 736 , same is liable to be dismissed.” 21. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Vinita Bhatnagar vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online All. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Vinita Bhatnagar vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online All. 6411, in which this Court held that: “It is well-settled that a review application ought not to have been filed by a Counsel who has not argued the matter but ought to have been filed by the same Counsel who has earlier argued the matter. In T. N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736 the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of arguing the matter by one Counsel and review by another Counsel and has observed that the review application ought to have been filed by the, same Counsel who has argued the matter.” 22. In the present case also, earlier the review petitioner had initially engaged Sri. Suresh Kumar Singh and Sri. Umesh Singh Advocates. Thereafter he had engaged Sri. Balkeshwar Srivastava and Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Advocates. He had filed a counter affidavit through Sri. Balkeshwar Srivastava. Sri Jai Singh the petitioner in Writ (C) No. 13864 of 2019, had filed Review Application No. 153668 of 2019 and the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni had filed an application for rejection of application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition, an Application for dismissal of review application and a supplementary counter affidavit through Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. On 16.09.2021, the opposite party no. 4 Sri. Tej Narayan Soni had filed C.M.A. No. 120260 of 2021 through Sri. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for modification/recall of the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in the Writ Petition. Subsequently the opposite party no. 4 engaged Ms. Pushpila Bisht Advocate, who assisted Sri. J. N. Mathur Senior Advocate. The application for modification/recall of the order dated 31.08.2021 was rejected by means of an order dated 29.09.2021. The opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2021 by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13769 of 2021, but during pendency of the aforesaid S.L.P. on 10.01.2022 the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni filed the instant application through Sri Raj Vikram Singh, Advocate, seeking review of the order dated 29.08.2019. 23. The opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2021 by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13769 of 2021, but during pendency of the aforesaid S.L.P. on 10.01.2022 the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni filed the instant application through Sri Raj Vikram Singh, Advocate, seeking review of the order dated 29.08.2019. 23. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Electricity Board (Supra) and by this Court in U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. versus Anil Kumar Mishra and Vinita Bhatnagar versus Union of India (Supra), the review application filed by the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni through Sri Raj Vikram Singh, Advocate, who had not filed the pleadings in the Writ Proceedings and who had not advanced submissions on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni at any stage and who filed his Vakalatnama in the Writ Petition when nothing was pending before the Writ (C)ourt, cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 24. Moreover, earlier the opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni had filed an application for modification/recall of the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in the Writ Petition, which was rejected by means of an order dated 29.09.2021. The opposite party no. 4 Tej Narayan Soni, challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2021 by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13769 of 2021 and the aforesaid S.L.P. has been dismissed as withdrawn on 08.02.2022, without any liberty having been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for availing any other remedy. In substance, the prayer made in the Review Petition is the same as was made in the application for Modification/recall of the order. For this reason also, the Review Petition does not deserve to be entertained in view of the law laid down in T. N. Electricity Board (Supra) that “Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.” 25. However, we proceed to examine the Review Petition to ascertain as to whether any failure of justice would be caused by dismissal of the Review Petition. 26. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.” 25. However, we proceed to examine the Review Petition to ascertain as to whether any failure of justice would be caused by dismissal of the Review Petition. 26. The first ground pressed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that the petitioner of the Writ Petition has got no locus-standi as he is not the registered owner of House No. 216. This plea is not open to be raised for the first time in a review petition because a review is not a rehearing in disguise. 27. The scope of review jurisdiction is no longer res-integra and it is well settled through a catena of decisions and it has been summarized Vinita Bhatnagar versus Union of India (Supra) in the following manner: “3. An application for review cannot be treated to be an opportunity to argue the case on merits afresh. In the garb of a review application re-argument on merits of the case cannot be allowed. 4. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Court said: “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.” 5. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 the Court said: “........there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of, Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.” 6. Again, in Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 while quoting with approval the above passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma vs. Abhiram Pishak Shartn (supra), the Court once again held that renew proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. 7. In Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715 it was held that an error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. 8. In Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambai, (2002) 48 ALR 331 (SC) the Apex Court has observed about limited scope of judicial intervention at the time of review of the judgment and said: “The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well-settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.” 9. Thus, Review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of the matter is impermissible in the garb of review. It is an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 : AIR 2000 SC 1650 , the Court said that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a new. Such powers can be exercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The aforesaid view is reiterated in Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal, (2009) 76 ALR 782 (SC) and Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 the Court said: “19. Such powers can be exercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The aforesaid view is reiterated in Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal, (2009) 76 ALR 782 (SC) and Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 the Court said: “19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 , to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule.” The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337 . 22.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the Appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 28. Examining the facts of the present case in light of the law regarding scope of review, we find that the petitioner of the Writ Petition brought certain facts before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13864 (MB) of 2019 and after inviting counter affidavit, this Court was satisfied that some illegal constructions have been raised by the present review petitioner - some of which some are compoundable and some are non-compoundable and the Writ Petition was disposed of without issuing any direction, by merely expressing an expectation that the Parishad will take a decision in accordance with law. Whether the petitioner of the aforesaid Writ Petition is the owner of House No. 216 or not, would not make any difference on the legality or otherwise of the structures raised by the review petitioner and we do not find any error, what to say about an error which is apparent on the face of the record, in the order dated 29.08.2019 disposing of the Writ Petition without issuing any direction to demolish the premises which is non-compoundable and merely recording an expectation that the Parishad will take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 29. The second ground pressed by the learned counsel for the review applicant is that earlier the Compounding Bye-laws 2010 were in force which required a larger area to be left as set-back, including side set-back and back set-back. In the year 2020, a new Compounding Scheme has been framed, under which the requirement of side set-back and rear set-back has been done away with. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the constructions in question are compoundable under the amended Scheme and the same are not liable to be demolished. In the year 2020, a new Compounding Scheme has been framed, under which the requirement of side set-back and rear set-back has been done away with. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the constructions in question are compoundable under the amended Scheme and the same are not liable to be demolished. 30. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has submitted that operation of the Amended Rules of has been stayed by means of an order dated 07.10.2020 passed by this Court sitting at Allahabad in Writ (C) No. 15757 of 2020. Sri Chandra has very fairly submitted that under the amended Scheme, the review application would be entitled to some benefits as the compoundable area under the amended Rules will be larger than that under the un-amended Rules. 31. Be that as it may, the petitioner has already filed Writ (C) No. 1362 of 2022 and on 05.03.2022 a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order in that Writ Petition: “Accordingly, in our opinion, the review application filed by the petitioner needs to be heard at an early date. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate to provide that till the next date of listing, pursuant to the impugned notice dated 02.03.2022, no demolition/eviction in respect of House No. B-218, Sector 17, Rajajipuram, Lucknow shall take place.” 32. Thus, the validity of the demolition notice dated 02.03.2022 is under question before this Court in Writ (C) No. 1362 of 2022 and the petitioner has already been granted interim protection in the aforesaid Writ Petition and these grounds cannot be raised as a ground of review for the order dated 29.08.2019, passed in Writ (C) No. 13684 of 2019, wherein the review petitioner had filed a counter affidavit and the plea of amendment in the relevant Rules had not been raised and, therefore, this Court has not decided that plea. Failure of this Court to decide a plea that has not been raised, cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record. 33. Failure of this Court to decide a plea that has not been raised, cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record. 33. As such, having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we find ourselves unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and we do not find any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record, in the order dated 29.08.2019, passed in Writ (C) No. 13864 of 2019. 34. The review petition/application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.