C. Review No. 2 of 2008 24.03.2008 Present: Mr. H.K. Paul, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1,3 and 4. Heard. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of the present review petition are that the instrument of Patta was void and inoperative being against the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The other ground taken is that the officers signing the instrument had no authority in the matter. The next ground urged was that the condition in the Patta that the allottee could not sell the land within 15 years of the allotment is contrary to the scheme. The other plea taken was that during pendency of the appeal, the original allottee Thanu Ram had died but the application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for bringing on record the name of legal representative of late Thanu Ram was rejected by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and the appeal filed was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, by a composite order. …2… We have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the same shows that there is no reference to Article 299 of the Constitution of India or that the instrument was void and inoperative being against this provision. There were no assertions that the officers signing the instrument had no authority in the matter. There were no specific assertions also made that the condition in the Patta that the allottee could not sell the land within 15 years of the allotment was contrary to the scheme. All these points do not find specific mention in the petition and have been taken for the first time in this review petition. A perusal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner shows that he had alleged in regard to the alienation within a period of 15 years and that there was no bar for allottee in regard to further sale of his land. Some assertions were made in regard to the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C., but the main assertion made was in regard to the bias of the Financial Commissioner in deciding the appeal but this was specifically admitted by the petitioner in Para-8(e) that there was no provision for third appeal to challenge the order of the Commissioner. …3… A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court shows that this Court had duly considered the plea in regard to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and that whether she had any bias as against the petitioner and the fact that there was no provision for appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. All these assertions made in regard to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner or bias or the question of sale by Thanu Ram were considered by this Court while passing the judgment. There is nothing in the record to show that any specific plea was raised in regard to application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. and this Court was not sitting in an appeal against the order passed on the application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. which was decided by the Commissioner and this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction was only to consider the legality of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner which was duly considered and all the points urged in the petition were considered by the Court and findings were given accordingly. In view of the above discussion, it follows that no case is made out for review of the order passed by this Court and new pleas have been raised for the first time which were not raised and as such, there is no merit in the review petition filed by the …4… petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 24, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), J. (BSS)