1. Review of the order dated May 9, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been sought by filing the present applications.

2. Before we notice the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to notice certain dates, which are not in dispute.

RELEVANT DATES PERTAINING TO REVIEW APPLICATION FILED BY THE STATE

RELEVANT DATES PERTAINING TO REVIEW APPLICATION FILED BY THE GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

3. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants, submitted that the legal issue involved in the present case is as to the date on which the amount of compensation payable to the land owners has to be assessed. It is with reference to Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’).

4. In the case in hand, the process of acquisition started before the enactment of the 2013 Act, however, the award was announced on May 8, 2015 i.e. after the 2013 Act came into force. The date for assessment of compensation was taken as the date on which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) was issued. In the order under review, the Division Bench of this Court, while relying upon a communication from the Government of India dated October 26, 2015, had directed that the market value of the land has to be determined as on January 1, 2014. Even in the cases where the acquisition proceedings started when the 1894 Act was in force, the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, is the crucial date for assessment of compensation. The aforesaid communication from Government of India was relied upon, without the same being placed on record by the writ petitioners. The same was considered to be a direction issued by the Government of India under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. However, Section 113(2) of the 2013 Act provides that any order issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act has to be laid before the Parliament. It was not done. Hence, the same could not be relied upon by the Court. When the confusion arose with reference to the aforesaid communication of Government of India, clarification was issued by the Government of India on September 26, 2018 that the earlier communication dated October 26, 2015 was not issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act.

5. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, while referring to Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, submitted that it does not talk about the date on which the compensation is to be assessed. Section 26 of the 2013 Act deals with determination of market value of the land. Proviso to Section 26 of the 2013 Act provides that crucial date for determination of compensation is the date on which the notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act is issued. The same is similar to Section 4 of the 1894 Act. As the provisions of the 2013 Act are quite clear, there was no ambiguity, which required clarification.

6. As legal issues are involved, which need to be considered, present review applications are maintainable.

7. In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a perusal of communication dated October 26, 2015 shows that the same was issued in response to a clarification sought by the State of Maharashtra. It was only after taking opinion from the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice that the clarification was issued. It is only an order passed under Section 113 of the 2013 Act, which is to be laid before the Parliament, not the direction. In the case in hand, it is clearly a direction issued by the Government of India. He further submitted that there is huge delay in filing the Review Applications.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to an order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 44731 of 2016, titled as Hori Lal v. State of U.P. and others, decided on March 9, 2017, vide which bunch of writ petitions, where similar claim was made by the writ petitioners, was dismissed. The matter was taken to Hon’ble the Supreme Court. In Civil Appeal No.1462 of 2019, titled as Hori Lal v. State of U.P. and others, decided on February 5, 2019, the claim of the land owners was conceded by the State, while relying upon the aforesaid communication of the Government of India dated October 26, 2015 to the extent that the date for assessment of market value of the land for which the acquisition process started under the 1894 Act and is completed under the 2013 Act, is to be taken as January 1, 2014. The stand of the State was accepted. Reference was also made to another order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court dated February 12, 2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2016 titled as Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh and others, where similar stand taken by the State has been noticed and while relying upon the earlier order passed in Hori Lal’s case (supra), the compensation was directed to be assessed as on January 1, 2014.

9. Once the stand taken by the State before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in earlier litigation with reference to the same issue is in terms of the clarification issued by the Government of India October 26, 2015, it should not be permitted to raise a different plea in the present case.

10. It was further argued that reliance on the communication issued by the Government of India on September 26, 2018 is totally misplaced for the reason that it was not in place when the writ petition was decided by this Court. Only the material, which was available as on that date, could be referred to or relied upon for the purpose of review of any order passed. After the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions, Review Petition and even Curative Petition by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, nothing lies in the mouth of the review-applicant to re-open the issue before this Court. In support, reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and others (2008)8 SCC 612 [LQ/SC/1957/23] .

11. In response, Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that even if the Special Leave Petitions or Review Petition had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, review is maintainable as the order passed by this Court, review of which is sought, does not merge with the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. In support, reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another (2000)6 SCC 359 [LQ/SC/2003/544] .

12. He further submitted that there is error apparent on record, as reliance on a communication issued by Government of India is misplaced for the reason that it was not an order issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. It is established from the subsequent communication of the Government of India. Even otherwise, if the aforesaid communication is taken to be issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act, the same having not been laid before the Parliament is otherwise also non est and could not have been relied upon. The communication is dated October 26, 2015 whereas it was relied upon by this Court in its order May 9, 2017 and there were number of sessions of Parliament in between. He further submitted that even otherwise concession given by the State counsel, on a matter of law, is not binding.

DISCUSSIONS

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

14. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act in the case in hand were issued on October 16, 2004 and November 28, 2005, respectively. As the award could not be announced before the 2013 Act came into force, the same was announced on May 8, 2015 in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Act. Delay was on account of pendency of litigation. The writ petition was filed in this Court. The sole contention was that the date of determination of the compensation for the acquired land should be taken as January 1, 2014, the date on which the 2013 Act came into force. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the communication issued by the Government of India dated October 26, 2015. It is stated to be under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. The letter of the Government of India was relied upon by this Court while accepting the writ petition holding that for assessment of compensation the date should be taken as January 1, 2014. This Court also observed that the Government of India had not issued any order rather had issued only the directions after taking the opinion from the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice and these directions were not required to be laid before the two Houses of Parliament and are also not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2013 Act.

15. It may be relevant to add here that the aforesaid order of the Government of India dated October 26, 2015, on which reliance was placed upon by the writ petitioners, was not part of the record, as apparently the same was produced in Court at the time of hearing, which had been extracted in toto in the order dated May 9, 2017. Otherwise, the existence thereof has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the review-applicants.

16. Before we proceed to deal with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to refer to certain provisions of the 2013 Act.

17. Sections 24, 26 and 113 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, are extracted below:-

“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

XXX

“26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.–(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:—

(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or

(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or

(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher:

Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.

(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.

(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that-

(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or

(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or

(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:

Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five per cent, of the value so calculated under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be:

Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-section (1):

Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area:

Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

XXX

“113. Power to remove difficulties.–(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Part, the Central Government may, by order, make such provisions or give such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the difficulty:

Provided that no such power shall be exercised after the expiry of a period of two years from the commencement of this Act.

(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament.”

18. The communications from the Government of India dated October 26, 2015 and September 26, 2018, are also extracted below:

“Government of India

Department of Land Resources

Ministry of Rural Development

Hukum Singh Meena, IAS

Joint Secretary

Dated 26th October, 2015

Dear,

Please refer to your letter No. R&FD/General2014 CR-31/A4, dated the 11th September, 2014 regarding directions under section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The issues raised by you along with the view of this Department were sent to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice for opinion in the matter. The issues raised by the Government of Maharashtra and the opinion of the Department, as concurred in by the Department of Legal Affairs, thereon are enumerated below:-

S. No.	Issues raised by the Government of Maharashtra	Opinion of the DoLR
1.	While determining the amount of compensation under Section 27 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders are followed or cost of assets have to be separately computed in addition to cost of land	Under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 market value of the land is determined while under section 27, value of all assets attached to the land is added to die market value to determine, the amount of compensation. Thus, it is not contradictory to me Supreme Court’s orders quoted in me letter of Maharashtra Government.
2.	Under Section 24(1), the reference date for calculating 12% interest should be date of preliminary notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.	Under section 24 (1), the reference date for calculating 12% interest should be date of preliminary notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Department of Land Resources agrees to this, as there is no other reference date, that can be treated as equivalent to date of SIA notification under die RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
3.	For calculation of market value, under Section 24 (1)(a), reference date should be 01.01.2014 (commencement of RFCTLARR Act, 2013) or date of issuing preliminary notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894	The reference date for calculation of market value, under Section 24(1) (a) should be 01.01.2014 (commencement of RFCTLARR Act, 2013), as the Section reads “in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply Under section 26 reference date is date of preliminary notification, but section 24 is a special case of application of the. In retrospective cases, and a later date of determination of market value is suggested (i.e. 01.01.2014) with a view to ensure that the land owners/farmers/affected families get enhanced compensation under the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (as also recommended by Standing Committee in its 31st report).

Sd/-

(Hukum Singh Meena)

Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava

Principal Secretary

Revenue & Forest Department

Government of Maharashtra,

Mantralaya Mumbai-400032

Copy to :-

All Principal Secretaries of States/UTs (except of States of Maharashtra & Govt. of Jammu & Kashmit) for information and necessary action.

(Hukum Singh Meena)

Joint Secretary (LR)

Tele No. 011-23063462”

XXX

“No.13013/2017-LRD

Government of India

Ministry of Rural Development

Department of Land Resources

NBO Building, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

Dated:26th September, 2018

To,

Shri Vikas Kharge

Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department

Government of Maharashtra,

Mantralaya Annex-32

Subject : Clarification regarding reference date for calculation of market value in cases of land acquisition under LA Act, 1894-reg.

Sir,

I am direction to refer to your letter no. R& FD/General-2014/CR-31/A-4 dated 3rd May, 2017 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice in reference to this Department’s D.O. letter no.13013/01/2014-LRD (pt) dated 26.10.2015, letter no.13013/01/2014-LRD dated 14.06.2016 and your letter no.R&FD/General-2014/CR-31/A-4 dated 30th October, 2017 on the subject mentioned above and to say that:

(i) The quantum of compensation and rate of interest is to be decided by a quasi-judicial authority/collector by application of his own mind, based on facts & merits of each case as per the relevant provision of law.

(ii) D.O. Letter No.13013/01/2014-LRD (pt) dated 26.10.2015 of this Department is only a D.O. letter and not an order under Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Hukum Singh Meena)

Joint Secretary to the Government of India

Tel 011-23063462”

REGARDING CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

19. Section 113(1) of the 2013 Act enables the Government of India to issue any order to remove difficulty arising in giving effect to the provisions of that part. Though the 2013 Act is not divided into different parts, however, there are XIII Chapters. Section 113 of the 2013 Act is part of Chapter XIII. This Chapter contains Sections 91 to 114. Any order passed under Section 113 of the 2013 Act cannot be inconsistent with the provision of the 2013 Act, rather is meant for removal of any difficulty. Every order made under the aforesaid section has to be laid before each House of Parliament.

20. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the communication dated October 26, 2015, which is stated to be issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act, was not laid before any of the House of Parliament. This Court had made a distinction in two words used in Section 113 of the 2013 Act i.e. ‘order’ and ‘direction’. A distinction is sought to be made while referring to Sub-section (2) thereof holding that only an order passed under Section 113 of the 2013 Act is to be laid before the Parliament and not the direction. The issue may require consideration as to whether the aforesaid two terms are different or the word ‘order’ has been used in generinc sense.

21. A perusal of the communication dated October 26, 2015 reveals that State of Maharashtra had sought certain directions with reference to the 2013 Act from the Government of India. It was clarified that for the purpose of calculation of market value, the crucial date is January 1, 2014, in case the acquisition process was initiated under the 1894 Act and was completed under the 2013 Act.

22. The aforesaid communication was later on clarified by the Government of India vide letter dated September 26, 2018 to mean that the same was not issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. Letter dated September 26, 2018 was issued after the decision of writ petition by this Court on May 9, 2017 and even dismissal of the Special Leave Petition and Review Petition filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, on July 19, 2017 and December 5, 2017, respectively.

EARLIER ORDERS OF COURT

23. The fact remains that in the case in hand the Division Bench of this Court, in the order under review, relied upon the aforesaid clarification issued by the Government of India dated October 26, 2015 and directed for taking the date of assessment of compensation as January 1, 2014.

24. Prior to that, a Division Bench of this Court in Hori Lal’s case (supra) had rejected the same argument while holding that the proper remedy is available to the land owners under Section 64 of the 2013 Act for assessment of fair compensation. The order passed by this Court in Hori Lal’s case (supra) was subject matter of challenge before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1462 of 2019 titled as Hori Lal v. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of on February 5, 2019. In the aforesaid order the stand taken by the State was recorded that the crucial date for assessment of compensation shall be taken as January 1, 2014, in case where the acquisition proceedings started before commencement of the 2013 Act.

25. Subsequent thereto, in the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Aligarh Development Authority’s case (supra) also Hon’ble the Supreme Court while relying upon earlier order passed in Hori Lal’s case (supra) directed that the compensation in similar situation has to be given taking the crucial date as January 1, 2014. The notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be deemed to be issued as on January 1, 2014.

26. In the case in hand, the Special Leave Petition filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority was dismissed on July 19, 2017 and the Special Leave Petition filed by the State was dismissed on February 9, 2021. The Review Petition as well as the Curative Petition filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority were also dismissed on December 5, 2017 and August 28, 2019, respectively.

27. Earlier, this Court in Writ-C No.15804 of 2016 titled as Prahlad Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on September 26, 2016, while relying upon the communication issued by the Government of India dated October 26, 2015, had taken the view that the crucial date for assessment of compensation is January 1, 2014.

28. Prior to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in hand on May 9, 2017, this Court vide order dated April 18, 2017 passed in Writ-C No.44720 of 2016 titled as Krishna Autar and others v. State of U.P. and others, while relying upon the communication issued by the Government of India dated October 26, 2015, had taken the view that the crucial date for assessment of compensation is January 1, 2014. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.26271 of 2017, titled as Moradabad Development Authority v. Krishna Autar and others filed by the Moradabad Development Authority against the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court was dismissed on December 5, 2017. Even the Review Petition filed by the Moradabad Development Authority was dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court on February 6, 2018.

29. Vide order dated March 28, 2017 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.40 of 2017, titled as Deepak Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, direction was issued for determination of compensation as on January 1, 2014. It was a case in which the acquisition process was initiated under the 1894 Act, however, the award was announced after the 2013 Act came into force. Reliance was placed upon the communication issued by the Government of India dated October 26, 2015. It may be out of place, if not added here, that the Ghaziabad Development Authority vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25061 of 2017, titled as Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Deepak Kumar Singh and others had challenged the aforesaid order passed by Division Bench of this Court, wherein vide order dated September 22, 2017 leave was granted and operation of the order passed by this Court was stayed.

30. In yet another case bearing Writ-C No.9277 of 2019, titled as Natthu Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Division Bench of this Court vide order dated March 14, 2019 relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Aligarh Development Authority’s case (supra), directed for assessment of compensation as on January 1, 2014. Against the aforesaid order, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.30658 of 2019, titled as the State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Nathu Singh and others was filed by the State of U.P. in which notice was issued on September 11, 2019 and proceedings in the pending contempt petition were stayed. It was directed to be tagged with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24242 of 2018.

31. Against the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated April 18, 2017 passed in Writ-C No.44720 of 2016, titled as Krishna Autar and others v. State of U.P. and others, the State of U.P. filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27415 of 2018, titled as State of U.P. and others v. Krishna Autar and others before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein vide order dated September 4, 2018 notice was issued and operation of the impugned order passed by Division Bench of this Court was stayed. While passing the order dated September 4, 2018, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, on the basis of the statement made at the Bar that the issue, which is subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid special leave petition, is pending consideration before the Larger Bench in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9036-9038 of 2016, titled as Indore Development Authority and others v. Manoharlal and others, directed that the said matter be listed after the judgment is rendered by the Larger Bench.

CONCLUSIONS

32. Prior to the order passed in the case in hand, this Court in Prahlad Singh’s case (supra), vide order dated October 26, 2016 directed that the compensation be assessed as on January 1, 2014. Nothing was stated before this Court by either of the parties as to whether the aforesaid order passed by this Court was challenged before Hon’ble the Supreme Court or not.

33. Further, prior to the order passed by this Court in the case in hand on May 9, 2017, this Court vide order dated March 9, 2017 passed in Hori Lal’s case (supra) had dismissed the said writ petition, in which similar claim was made. Immediately thereafter, this Court vide orders dated March 28, 2017 and April 18, 2017 passed in Deepak Kumar and others’ case (supra) and Krishna Autar and others’ case (supra), filed raising the same issue, allowed the said writ petitions taking the view that the crucial date for assessment of compensation is January 1, 2014.

34. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25061 of 2017 filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority against the judgment of this Court dated March 28, 2017 passed in Deepak Kumar and others’ case (supra), leave was granted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and operation of the impugned order was stayed, vide order dated September 22, 2017.

35. Against the judgment of this Court dated April 18, 2017 passed in Krishna Autar and others’ case (supra), Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.26271 of 2017 filed by the Moradabad Development Authority was dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court on November 14, 2017. Whereas in Special Leave Petition No.25061 of 2017 filed by the State of U.P. and others against the same judgment, notice was issued and operation of the impugned order of the Division Bench of this Court was stayed, vide order dated September 4, 2018.

36. Further, this Court in Natthu Singh and others’ case (supra) had granted the relief to the land owners relying upon the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Aligarh Development Authority’s case (supra). Against that order, in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of U.P. and others, notice was issued and pending contempt proceedings were stayed, vide order dated September 11, 2019.

37. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, one thing is clear that the State has not been diligent in pursuing its case where identical issues were involved before this Court. Apparently, the facts were also not properly presented before Hon’ble the Supreme Court with reference to pendency or decision of the cases.

38. Though dismissal of the Special Leave Petition may not be a bar for entertaining the Review Application, however, the fact remains that where this Court had taken the view that crucial date for assessment of compensation is January 1, 2014, Special Leave Petitions filed by State and Ghaziabad Development Authority in the case in hand were dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, whereas three Special Leave Petitions, as referred to in the preceding paragraphs, have been entertained thereafter and are pending consideration. Where the view taken by this Court was that the land owners are not entitled for assessment of compensation as on January 1, 2014.

39. Further, for interpretation of the communication of the Government of India dated October 26, 2015, arguments are sought to be readdressed referring to the subsequent communication of Government of India dated September 26, 2018, which came in existence after the writ petition was decided by this Court.

40. Practically, the arguments have to be reheard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be a case where the error is apparent on record as review of the order is sought on grounds, which were not existing at the time of passing of order by this Court.

41. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any case is made out for entertaining the present Review Applications. The Review Applications along with all accompanying applications are, accordingly, dismissed.