Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Development Authority Thru. Mr. ... vs Smt. Rekha on 29 September, 2015
1
R.P. Nos.310/2014, 311/2014 & 312/2014
29.9.2015
Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel with Shri Anand
Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manohar Dalal, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard.
These review petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.3914/2014, 3913/2014 & 3862/2014 whereby by identical order the writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter was heard in batch of 17 writ petitions and by mistake, the consent was granted whereas the present writ petitions factually differ from the other cases.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the review petitions submitting that the scope of review is limited and that in the circumstances of the case, the consent was rightly granted.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that this Court by order dated 15.7.2014 had dismissed the aforesaid writ 2 petitions recording the submission of counsel for the respondent (review petitioner) that the respondent is ready to acquire the land in accordance with the Act and pay the compensation to the petitioner. Counsel for the review petitioner has pointed out that the land was already purchased by the respondent and in the writ petition the prayer was for obtaining the possession after partition and demarcation. He has submitted that the said aspect of the matter could not be pointed out since the matter was heard in batch and in the other connected matters, the land was required to be acquired whereas in the aforesaid three writ petitions the part of the land was already purchased.
The above aspect of the matter has not been disputed by counsel for the other side.
Considering the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that a case for review is made out.
Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu Kathuria and others, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 534 but in that judgment also it has been held that in case if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, the judgment/order can be reviewed or recalled. Since I am of the opinion that there is an apparent error on the face of the record in the order noted above, hence the 3 benefit of the said judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be granted to counsel for the respondent.
In these circumstances, the review petitions are allowed and the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.3914/2014, 3913/2014 & 3862/2014 is recalled and writ petitions are restored to their original position for listing before the appropriate Bench for decision on merit.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the file of W.P. No.3914/2014, 3913/2014 & 3862/2014.
Signed order be kept in the file of R.P. No.310/2014 and a copy whereof be placed in the file of connected R.P. No.311/2014 and R.P. No.312/2014.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok