IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC RESTORATION APPLICATION NO. 612 OF 2009 CLMA DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 7190 OF 2009 In WRIT PETITION NO. 259 OF 2009 (MS) Nardev Singh Panwar ……..Petitioner. Versus The Director of Rehabilitation (City) Tehri Bandh Pariyojana and others. …Respondents. Mr. S.S. Negi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 6. 25th August, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. As the matter was revised and none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the matter proceeded ex parte and the writ petition was dismissed 18th June, 2009. Consequently, now the petitioner has filed a Restoration / Recall Application (bearing MCC No. 612 of 2009) along with a Delay Condonation Application (bearing CLMA No. 7190 of 2009) with a prayer that the delay in filing the restoration/recall application be condoned, order dated 18th June, 2009 be recalled and writ petition be heard on its merits. The reasons assigned for delay in filing the restoration/recall application appear to be just and bonafide. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration/recall application is condoned. 2 The reasons assigned for recalling the order dated 18th June, 2009 also appear to be just and bonafide. Restoration / Recall Application is allowed. Order dated 18th June, 2009 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. Heard Mr. S.S. Negi, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 6 on merits again. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner again on merits, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.S. Negi could not state anything further than what was already in the knowledge of this Court while passing the orders on 18th June, 2009. It is clear that the land of the petitioner was taken by way of private negotiation through a sale deed. There is no justification, therefore, to change or modify anything in the order dated 18th June, 2009. Therefore, the effect of the matter ultimately is that this land which was purchased by way of a sale deed, no interference can be done in a writ petition and the prayer sought by the petitioner to increase the rate from Rs. 70,000/- per Nali to Rs. 2,08,000/- per Nali cannot be granted. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.8.2009 Rathour