Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011

8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011

1/24

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1579 OF 2011

In

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2011

(Arising out of Final Order and Judgement dated 04.04.2011 passed by the

Honble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011)

IN THE MATTER OF:

A REVIEW PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

READ WITH ORDER XL RULE 2 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966,

AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGEMENT DATED 04.04.2011

PASSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN WRIT

PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2011)

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

P.V.Ravi Chandran

Advocate,5, Divya Krupa,

1st Street Extn.

Sri Krishna Nagar,

Maduravayal,

Chennai 600095 . Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Union of India,

Through the Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

Department of Home Affairs,

North Block, Central Secretariat,

Nav Dehli 110001.

2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir

Represented by its Chief Secretary,Department of Home,


2/24

2

Secretariat,

Srinagar 190009,

Jammu and Kashmir

3. The Surveyor General of India,

Survey of India

Hathibarkala Estate

Dehra Dun 248001,

Uttara Khand . Respondents

To

The Honble Chief Justice of India and his companion Honble Justice of

the Supreme Court of India

Humble Petition of the Petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner above named seeks review of order dated 04.04.2011

passed by this Honble Court (Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Honble Mr.

Justice K.S.PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, And Hon'ble Mr. Justice

SWATANTER KUMAR) under Article 137 of the Constitution of India,

whereby the Honble Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 127 of 2011, wherein this Honble Court was pleased to pass following

order Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in-person. The writ petition is

dismissed.

2. That the facts leading to file the instant Petition in brief are as under: -

i) The Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk compiled under the direction

of the Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch and

was first Published in 1890 and the aforesaid Gazetteer of Kashmr

and Ladk gives a description and details of places inside Kashmir

which are evidence apropos issue of the territorial extent of Kashmir

at the time of her accession to the new dominion of India on 26.10


3/24

3

1947 pertaining to the period of the commencement of the

Constitution of India.

ii) The maps, viz. the official maps attached to the 2 White Papers

published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the Government of

India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai

Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney

bind it in law and give them the legal status to determine the extent of

the territory of the State of Kashmir as stipulated in Entry 15 in the

First Schedule of the Constitution on India.

iii) Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had in his telegram dated 26 October, 1947

to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, reiterated and in no

uncertain terms stated thus, "Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are

aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan,

`the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and `China' ". Also, the

Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir states in his correspondence with

Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947, Besides, my

State has a common boundary with the Soviet Republic and

China. The said legal documents are of profound importance in

determining the territorial extent of the state of Kashmir pertaining to

the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India.

iv) The 1st respondent, however, pursuant to a 17 para Memorandum

dated 1 July 1954 issued by the 1

st

respondent herein, which stated

inter alia that the frontier should be considered a firm and definite

one, which is not open to discussion with any one. A system of check

posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we

should have check posts in such places as might be considered

disputed areas, published a new map of Kashmir altering the
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.html


4/24

4

boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in such a manner that

the state of Jammu and Kashmir was depicted as not having a border

with the then territory of the Soviet Union and moreover not depicting

vast areas which were previously depicted as integral part of Kashmr

inter alia in the aforesaid official maps attached to the 2 White Papers


India's Ministry of States, thus verily causing cessionof the territory

of India and alteration of the boundaries by the 1st respondent

resulting in the diminution of the territory of India, and the same was

done with out amending the Constitution of India as laid down by

Article 368 and was thus done in a manner not known to law, the said

entire proceedings of the 1st respondent had no legal sanctity

whatsoever since there had to be the requisite amendment of the

Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368 as held by this

Honourable Court in the Berubary Union and Exchange of Cooch-

Behar Enclaves on 01.04.1959 which was asine qua non.

v) Though the alteration of the boundaries of the state of Jammu and

Kashmir as depicted in the new map of Kashmir was pursuant to a 17

para Memorandum dated 1 July 1954 issued by the 1st respondent

herein, forinter alia the purported reason that the frontier should be

considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to discussion

with any one. A system of check posts should be spread along this

entire frontier. More especially, we should have check posts in such

places as might be considered disputed areas and though the said

Memorandum specifically mentioned Demchok, the Chinese have

encroached inter alia at Demchok on numerous occasions and stopped

essential amenities like road construction and sheds which the local


5/24

5

inhabitants had been craving for and the human rights of these citizens

of India have been violated, but the 1st respondent has all but justified

the encroachments.

vi) The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice dated 17.11.2010 to be

issued to the respondents herein enumerating the aforesaid issues but

the 1st respondent has neither given a reply whatsoever nor heeded to

legal notice.

vii) Hence, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 was filed by the

Petitioner on 07.03.2011.

3. GROUNDS

That the Petitioner seeks review of the Order dated 04.04.2011 on inter alia

the following grounds:

a. The Honourable Court erred passing the order with out at all hearing

the Petitioner in Person.

b. The Honourable Court erred in dismissing the Case by not

pronouncing a speaking order and the same cannot be countenanced

since the basic requirement of recording of reasons introduces clarity,

checks the extraneous and irrelevant considerations and averts

arbitrariness.

c.The Honourable Court erred in dismissing the Case by not

pronouncing a speaking order after hearing all the parties in the Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 as was done by this Honourable

Court in the Berubary Union and Exchange of Cooch-Behar Enclaves

on 01.04.1959 which was asine qua non.


6/24

6

d. The Honourable Court erred in not noting that the Case was of

profound importance and raised very pertinent issues of law and fact

which had a profound bearing on the sovereignty and territorial

integrity of India which had to be upheld and protected and that in

India there was rule of law which principle has been defined by Dicey

as, .with us every official, from Prime Minister down to Constable

or collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act

done without legal justification as any other citizen.., as

propounded in the maxim however high you may be, law is above

you.

e. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that the petition pertained

to the illegal cartographical cession of the territory of India and

alteration of the boundaries by the 1st respondent in 1954 resulting in

the diminution of the territory of India which was done with out the

requisite amendment of the Constitution of India as laid down by

Article 368 as held by this Honourable Court in the Berubary Union

and exchange of Cooch- Behar Enclaves on 01.04.1959, and hence

was per se illegal.

f. The Honourable Court erred in not considering the fact that Article 51

A of the Constitution of India, prescribes that it is the fundamental

duty of the Citizen of India to uphold the territorial integrity and the

sovereignty of India.

g. The Honourable Court erred in not considering the fact that when the

1st respondent had unscrupulously subverted and circumvented the

Constitution of India and illegally altered the boundaries in a manner

not known to law resulting in the illegal diminution of the territory of

India, the same was per se Illegal and absolutely had no legal sanctity


7/24

7

whatsoever and would continue to be ab initio illegal, null and void

and non est indefinitely forever since the Constitution of India had

not been amended and the Entry 15 to the First Schedule of the

Constitution was affected and the same has not been amended, and the

lapse of time in approaching this Honourable Court, how ever long it

may be was totally and absolutely irrelevant and the filing of the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 was inevitable and was only

waiting to happen since in India the Constitution of India was

sacrosanct and supreme and the 1st respondent should not be

permitted to achieve a fait accompli and successfully subvert and

undermine the Constitution of India which was supreme and

sacrosanct.

h. The Honourable Court erred in not noting that in a Similar Writ

Petition pending in the file of this Honourable Court in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 561 of 2008, which also pertained to the same issue of the

illegal cession of the territory of India resulting in the diminution of

the territory of India, the preliminary issue of the purported delay of

34 years in filing the PIL and why the Petitioner woke up after 34

years and whether the petition was maintainable now after a long

lapse of time" was raised but never the less the said Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 561 of 2008 was not dismissed in limine and notice to the

respondent was issued and the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 561 of

2008 is still pending and hence, this Honourable Court was bound to

apply the same yardstick and ought to be consistent and it did not

behove the honourable apex court of India to be inconsistent and

apply different yardstick to similar cases.


8/24

8

i. The Honourable Court did not appreciate the fact that this honourable

Court, having not in limine dismissed a similar case in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 561 of 2008 on the ground of purported delay in filing

and lapse of time, would take a contradictory and inconsistent stance

if Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 were dismissed and the same

would result in applying different yardsticks in similar cases which

would result in patent discrimination and inter alia violation of Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

j. The Honourable Court ought to have stated in a clear unambiguous

manner, and laid down the law in so many words, if it were indeed

the view of this Honourable Court that even if the initial cession of

the territory of India resulting in the diminution of the territory of

India was done with out the prerequisite amendment of the

Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368 was illegal, the same

would attain legitimacy and sanctity due to efflux of time since the

issue had not been challenged and there was a long lapse of time till

Writ petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 was filed in this Honourable

Court.

k. The Honourable Court ought to consider the fact that if it were the

view of this Honourable Court and if this Honourable Court gave a

finding that not withstanding the fact that the initial cession of the

territory of India resulting in the diminution of the territory of India

was done with out the prerequisite amendment of the Constitution of

India as laid down by Article 368 was illegal, the same would attain

legitimacy and sanctity due to efflux of time since the issue had not

been challenged due to the long lapse of time, whether the said ruling


9/24

9

would result in the subversion of the Constitution of India which was

supreme and sacrosanct.

l. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that after a perusal of the

Petition in Writ petition (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011 that the pertinent

issues pertaining to questions of law and fact which are now very

much in the public domain and the issue has been of late hot in the

political domain.

m. The Honourable Court ought to have noted that the violation of the

fundamental rights of the Citizens of India narrated in the aforesaid

Writ petition (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011 was a direct and inevitable

result of the initial illegal cartographical ceding of the territory of

India resulting in the illegal diminution of the territory of India by the

1st respondent.

n. The Honourable Court ought to have noted that there was a vicious

circle which emanated from the initial ab initio illegal cartographical

ceding of the territory of India and the publication of the spurious new

map of Kashmir in 1953 resulting in the alteration of the boundaries

of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the diminution of the

territorial extent of India and now the new ab initio illegal map of

Kashmir was being used by the first respondent as the basis of the so-

called border talks being held with the Chinese in a position of

subservience, which was thus ipso facto illegal and further threatened

the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and the nefarious

conduct of the 1st respondent had to be nipped in the bud.

o. The Honourable Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the

Petition filed in Writ petition (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011 was a

wonderful and marvelous opportunity for this honourable court to


10/24

10

redress the wrong and undo the harm done to this nation by the 1st

respondent and by not seizing the opportunity, this honourable court

had abdicated its responsibilities of upholding and protecting the

sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

p. The Honourable Court ought to have noted that the 1st respondent had

illegally altered the boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir

and had depicted a new map of Kashmir in 1953 which illegally did

not depict vast areas which had earlier been depicted as an integral

part of Kashmir in the official maps attached to the 2 White Papers


India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally by Sardar Vallabhbhai

Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney

which bind it in law, and which ceased to depict the boundary of the

State of Jammu and Kashmir with what was then the Soviet Union

and now the Territory of Gorno Badakhshan now administered by

Tajikistan.

q. The Honourable Court did not appreciate the fact that vast areas

which had been included within the territory of Kashmir in The

Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk compiled under the direction of the

Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch and first

Published in 1890 were overnight illegally depicted as not part of the

State by the aforesaid illegal and unscrupulous act of the 1st

respondent.

r. The Honourable Court did not appreciate the fact that the Princely

state of Kashmir at the time of her accession to the new Dominion of


11/24

11

India on 26.10.1947 had a de jure border with what was then the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and this irrefutable fact is borne

out by records viz. the telegram of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru dated 26

October, 1947 to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, wherein

he reiterates and in no uncertain terms says, "Kashmir's Northern

frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those of three

countries, Afghanistan, `the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and

`China' ", as well as the correspondence of Maharaja Hari Singh of

Kashmir with Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947

wherein he states, Besides, my State has a common boundary with

the Soviet Republic and China, both of which are crucial legal

documents pertaining to the territorial extent of the State of Jammu &

Kashmir, and the fact that the 1st respondent in the year 1954 depicted

a new map of Kashmr which altered the boundaries of the state in

such a manner that the state was illegally depicted as not having a

border with the Soviet Union resulting in the diminution in the

territory of India was sufficient enough to even allow the Writ Petition

in limine as prayed for.

s. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that in the case of the State

of Jammu and Kashmir, besides the Entry 15 in the First Schedule of

the Constitution of India which reads, The territory which

immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was

comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the said state

had her own constitution wherein Section (4) of the Constitution of

Jammu and Kashmir unequivocally states, The territory of the State

shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August,
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htmhttp://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm


12/24

12

1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the

State".

t. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that insofar as the State of

Jammu and Kashmir was concerned, the power of the Union

Parliament to dispose of the territory of the state in consequence of an

international agreement or treaty, under Article 253 is also limited in

regard to Kashmir . No Bill effecting the disposition of the State of

Jammu and Kashmir is valid unless passed with the previous consent

of the State Government. And indeed in the words of Professor

Gledhill, the treaty making power cannot be used to do what the

Constitution otherwise forbids .1

u. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that the power of the Union

Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution of India to alter the

name , area and boundaries of the state has been subjected to a

limitation by virtue of a proviso to the article. The Proviso reads as:

Provided further that no bill providing for increasing or

diminishing the area of the state of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or

boundary of that state shall be introduced in the parliament without the consent

of the legislature of that state2.

4. QUESTIONSOF LAW:

That the Petitioner seeks review of the above said order because following

questions of law of profound importance having wide ramification arise out

of this case, which need to be decided by this Hon'ble Court was not

considered. Those questions of law inter alia are:

1The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir by Justice Adarsh Sein Anand, 6th Edn. 2010 Published by Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt Ltd. C-FF-1A, Dilkhush Industrial Estate, Delhi 110033.2 Constitution(Application to Jammu and Kashmir)Order , 1954;C.O.48, section2(2)


13/24

13

a. What are the consequences of the clandestine and surreptitious

alteration of the boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir

whereby vast areas of the state which had hitherto been depicted as

integral part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the maps annexed

to the 2 White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by

the Government of India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally by

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor

General G.F. Heaney which bind it in law, were not depicted as part

of the said state resulting in the diminution of the territory of India ?

b. Whether the fact that the people of the Nation had not questioned or

challenged the initial Illegal act of the first respondent of altering the

boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and cartographical

cession of territory of the state in 1953 resulting in the diminution of

the territory of India with out following the procedure known to law,

since they were oblivious and ignorant and also because the whole

act of the first respondent was done in a stealthy manner and was

clandestine and surreptitious, and hence the first respondent could get

away with it all these years till the filing of this Writ petition (Civil )

No. 127 of 2011 by the Petitioner herein, conferred legitimacy and

sanctity to the said illegal act of the first respondent?

c. Whether it was the view of this Honourable Court that even if

admittedly the initial cession of the territory of India and the

alteration of the boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir

resulting in the diminution of the territory of India in 1953 was done

with out the prerequisite amendment of the Constitution of India as

laid down by Article 368 and was thus ipso factoab initio illegal, the


14/24

14

same would attain legitimacy and sanctity due to efflux of time since

the issue had not been challenged and there was a long lapse of time?

d. Whether the fact that the Constitution of India was sacrosanct and

supreme has lost its relevance in the changed circumstances, given the

fact that the aforesaid illegal act of the 1 st respondent had not been

questioned or challenged all these years and there was a long lapse of

time and hence, was it the View of this Honourable Court that the 1st

respondent could be permitted to achieve a fait accompli and

successfully subvert and undermine the Constitution of India which

henceforth shall cease to be supreme and sacrosanct?

5. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition of Review earlier before this

Honble Court against the final order and judgment dated 04.04.2011 passed by

this Honble Court in W.P. (Civil) No. 127 of 2011.

PRAYER

Therefore in light of these submissions and the in light of question of law raised in

the Petition it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court be graciously

pleased to:

i. Review its order dated 04.04.2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 127 of 2011 and

ii. Pass such other or further order as this Honble Court may deed fit

or proper in the interest of Justice.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY

New Delhi

Drawn on: 17.04.2011 Petitioner in Person

Filed on: 27.04.2011

Drawn by: P.V. Ravi Chandran, Advocate

Petitioner in Person


15/24

15

INDEX

Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.

1 Office Report on Limitation A2 Synopsis and List of Dates

3 Impugned order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble

Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011

4 Review Petition with Affidavit

5 Annexure A: Extract of the map of India annexed to the 2

White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by

the Government of India's Ministry of States, headed,

incidentally by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority

of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney which bind it in

law.

IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1579 of 2011


16/24

16

Petition seeking Review of Order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble Court

in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011.

IN THE MATTER OF:

P.V.Ravi Chandran

Advocate,

5, Divya Krupa,

1st Street Extn.

Sri Krishna Nagar,

Maduravayal,


AND






Nav Dehli 110001.


Represented by its Chief Secretary,

Department of Home,

Secretariat,

Srinagar 190009,

Jammu and Kashmir


Survey of IndiaHathibarkala Estate

Dehra Dun 248001,


Office Report On Limitation

The Review Petition is within time.

(SECTION OFFICER)

NEW DELHI

DATED: .04.2011

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES


17/24

17

That the instant Review Petition(Civil) has been filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved by the final judgment and order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble

Court (Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Honble Mr. Justice K.S.PANICKER

RADHAKRISHNAN, And Hon'ble Mr. Justice SWATANTER KUMAR)

whereby the Honble Supreme Court by its Judgment and order was pleased to

dismiss the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner raised the issue that new map of Kashmir issued by the 1st

respondent in the year 1954 was per se illegal and ab initio illegal and null and

void inter alia since the 1st respondent had in the year 1954 published the

aforesaid new map of Kashmr which in effect had altered the boundaries of the

state in such a manner that the state was illegally depicted as not having a border

with the Soviet Union and besides, the said map also did not depict vast areas

which had previously been depicted as an integral part of Kashmir in the official

maps attached to the 2 White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950

pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India by the

Government of India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally by Sardar

Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney

which bind it in law, resulting in the diminution in the territory of India.

Besides, inter alia vast areas of the state of Jammu and Kashmir which had been

included within the territory of Kashmir in The Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk

compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the

Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 were overnight illegally depicted as

not part of the State by the aforesaid illegal act of the 1st respondent and since the

same had verily resulted in the cession of the territory of the state of Jammu and

Kashmir resulting in the diminution in the territory of India and since this was


18/24

18

done with out amending the Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368 and

was thus done in a manner not known to law, the said entire proceedings of the 1st

respondent had no legal sanctity whatsoever and this Honourable Court had in

Berubary Union and exchange of Cooch- Behar Enclaves held that when there was

cession of the territory of India and alteration of the boundaries by the 1st

respondent resulting in the diminution of the territory of India, there had to be the

requisite amendment of the Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368.

The alteration of the boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir as depicted

in the new map of Kashmir was pursuant to a 17 para Memorandum dated 1 July

1954 issued by the 1st respondent herein, which stated inter alia that the frontier

should be considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to discussion with

any one. A system of check posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More

especially, we should have check posts in such places as might be considered

disputed areas. But in spite of the said purported reason, the Chinese have

encroached and stopped essential amenities like road construction and sheds which

the local inhabitants had been craving for and the human rights of these citizens of

India have been violated, but the 1st respondent has all but justified the

encroachments.

The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice dated 17.11.2010 to be issued to

the respondents herein enumerating the aforesaid issues but the 1

st

respondent has

neither given a reply whatsoever nor heeded to legal notice.

LIST OF DATES


19/24

19

1950 The official maps attached to the 2 White Papers published in July

1948 and February 1950 by the Government of India's Ministry of

States, headed, incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the

authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney bind it in law

1.07.1954 A 17 para Memorandum issued by the 1st respondent herein

1954 New map of Kashmir published by the 1st respondent herein which

depicted altered boundaries resulting to cession of territory of India

and the diminution in the territory of India

14.11.196

2

Unanimous resolution of the Parliament of India vowing to recover

every inch of land occupied by China howsoever long or hard the

struggle may be.

November

2009

The 1st Respondent meekly capitulated and succumbed to the arrogant

threats and intimidations of the Chinese army and stopped work on

an 8-km road project being constructed because the local residents i.e.

Citizens of India had been demanding a link to improve road

connectivity and provide employment to local residents, under the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in

Demchok, near Rudokh, in near-eastern historic Ladakh after the

Chinese army objected

September

October

2010

The Chinese had once again encroached into the Gombir area near

Demchok in Kashmir and intimidated and threatened the citizens

residing in that part of this country and the Civilian workers who

were constructing a shed which was approved at an estimated cost of

Rs 2 lakh to be built at village Gombir under the Border Area

Development Project of the Ministry of Home Affairs for the utility of

the public, the plan for which was cleared by the state Rural

Development Department, and were successful in preventing the

construction.

17.11.201

0

The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice to be issued to the

respondents herein


20/24

20

07.03.201

1

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 filed by the petitioner filed in

this Honourable Court.

4.04.2011 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 dismissed.

ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.127 OF 2011

(For Prel. Hearing)

P.V.RAVI CHANDRAN Petitioner(s)


21/24

21

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)

Date: 04/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR

For Petitioner(s) In-person

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing petitioner in-person the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in-person.

The writ petition is dismissed.

[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ]

A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar





IN THE MATTER OF:


22/24

22

P.V.Ravi Chandran

Advocate,

5, Divya Krupa,

1st Street Extn.

Sri Krishna Nagar,

Maduravayal,


Vs.




Department of Home Affairs,North Block, Central Secretariat,

Nav Dehli 110001.



Department of Home,

Secretariat,

Srinagar 190009,

Jammu and Kashmir


Survey of India

Hathibarkala Estate

Dehra Dun 248001,


A F F I D A V I T

I, P.V.Ravi Chandran, aged about 44 years, son of Mahadevapandal Soolapani

Warrier , residing at No 5, Divya Krupa, 1st Street Extn., Sri Krishna Nagar,

Maduravayal, Chennai 600095, Tamil Nadu at Present at New Delhi, do hereby

solemnly affirmed as declare as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the accompanying Review Petition. I am acquainted

and conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to

swear this affidavit.


23/24

23

2. That I have drawn the accompanying Review Petition and hence I have read

and understood the contents of the same. The pages 1-14 of the Paper Book

contents of the Review Petition.

3. That the contents of Para 1-5 of the Review Petition are true as per my

knowledge and legal information received and borne out by records. The

contents of last Para is the prayer to this Hon'ble Court.

DEPONENT

V E R I F I C A T I O N

I, P.V.Ravi Chandran, above named Deponent due hereby verify that the

contents of this Affidavit are true to my knowledge and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the 27th day of April 2011

DEPONENT





IN THE MATTER OF:

P.V.Ravi Chandran

Advocate,5, Divya Krupa,


24/24

24

1st Street Extn.

Sri Krishna Nagar,

Maduravayal,


Vs.






Nav Dehli 110001.



Department of Home,

Secretariat,

Srinagar 190009,

Jammu and Kashmir


Survey of India

Hathibarkala Estate

Dehra Dun 248001,


PAPER BOOK

FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011

Documents

Transcript of Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011