1. The appellant claims that certain land was sold to it by Respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 5 and 6 dispute this contention. On the ground that the land had been acquired without payment of compensation, Respondents 5 and 6 filed an application under S.18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 before the District Judge. The District Judge held in favour of Respondents 5 and 6 by an order dated 6-4-1990. Being aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan, Respondent 1 herein, filed an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal was pending, the appellant moved an application for impleadment. That application for impleadment was kept pending. Without disposing of the application, on 31-7-2001, the States appeal itself was disposed of by the High Court. The appellant filed an application for review. The review application was admitted by the High Court observing that the name of the counsel for the appellant had not been shown on the cause list on the relevant date.

2. While the review application was pending, the appellant sought to file an appeal from the order dated 31-7-2001 before this Court by way of a special leave petition. Incidentally, the State of Rajasthan as well as the Jaipur Development Authority also impugned the order of the High Court disposing of the appeal. As far as their special leave petitions are concerned, leave has been granted and the appeals are pending. As far as the appellants special leave petition was concerned, it was dismissed without givingany reasons at all.

3. After the dismissal of its special leave petition, the appellant sought to revive its review application before the High Court. The High Court by the order impugned in this appeal held that the review petition was not maintainable in view of the fact that the special leave petition from the order sought to be reviewed had been dismissed. According to the High Court, the ratio of the decision in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000 (6) SCC 359 [LQ/SC/2000/1013] ) did not apply and the principle of judicial discipline and propriety demanded that the order of the High Court disposing of the appeal should not be reopened.

4. We are of the view that the High Court has misconstrued the decision in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000 (6) SCC 359 [LQ/SC/2000/1013] ) where this Court has categorically held that when a special leave petition is dismissed by a non speaking order, the High Court could be moved by way of a petition for review (vide para 18 of the judgment).

5. Learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan has, however, drawn our attention to the decision in Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. (1994 (2) SCC 622 [LQ/SC/1994/118] : 1994 (27) ATC 166 to contend that a person who is not a party to the proceeding could not, once having opted for filing special leave petition, make an application for review.

6. In our view, the decision relied upon does not support the contention. Indeed, para 8 of the decision makes it clear that a person not impleaded as a party has a right to file a special leave petition as well as to file an application for review. It is true that the word "or" has been used. But that word, in the light of the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000 (6) SCC 359 [LQ/SC/2000/1013] ) must be read as "and". In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned decision of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court. The High Court will now hear the review application of the appellant on merits.

7. As far as the application for impleadment is concerned, we pass no order. It is however open to the applicant to make appropriate application if it is otherwise so entitled in law before the High Court.

8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

9. There will be no order as to costs.