( 1 ) WE have gone through the application for review and the connected papers. The application is supported by an affidavit by the petitioner Jagmohan, former Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi who was respondent 2 in Writ petitions 535-539 of 1980, decided on 7/10/1985. He seeks review of the judgment delivered by this court principally on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the judgment turns on certain arguments and statements attributed to Shri L. N. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1, the Union of India and to Shri M. C. Bhandare, learned counsel appearing for respondent 3, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner Jagmohan avers in the affidavit that the contents of paras 1 to 3 are true to his knowledge and based on information derived from the counsel appearing in the case which he believes to be true. Along with the application for review he has annexed a letter dated 12/10/1985 addressed by Shri p. P. Singh who was assisting Shri L. N. Sinha asserting that the learned counsel had never advanced the arguments attributed to him in the judgment and a letter of Shri M. C. Bhandare dated 13/10/1985 addressed to Shri B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate-on-Record of respondent 3, Municipal Corporation of Delhi denying that he ever made the statement attributed to him at pp. 189-190 of the judgment delivered by one of us (A. P. Sen, J. ). In the first letter, Shri P. P. Singh writes to say :there are certain statements in the judgment which are attributed to shri Sinha having made in the course of his arguments which do not seem to be correct as having been made by him. I have discussed the matter with Mr Sinha and he agrees with me that it is not correct that he made the following statements during his course of arguments : (A) He has further submitted that the land leased under the lease deed being nazul land is exclusively owned by the Union government and the powers delegated to the former Chief Commissioner of Delhi under the lease deed were no longer exercisable by the present lt. governor of Delhi. (B ). . . . . . on the date on which the action was initiated in this case by the Lt. governor against the petitioner the Lt. governor had acted without authority or power. (C) That "the learned Counsel for the Union of India had disowned all the actions of the Lt. governor. " (D) That the learned Counsel for respondent 1 i. e. the Union of india "contended that Lt. governor, as an Administrator had no function as the lessor or its delegate". (E) That "the Lt. governor could not usurp the powers and functions of the Union of India in relation to the property of the union and therefore had no functions in relation to the lease in question". (F) That "the central government were contemplating to undertake a legislation and to provide for a forum for adjudication of such disputes. (SHRI Sinha did inform the court that he had advised the Central government to undertake a legislation for empowering the government to condone the violations of the nature involved in the present case in public interest ). . . . . . . IT is incorrect as stated at pages 90-91 of the judgment that the learned Counsel for the Union of India conceded that the impugned notice was invalid and had no legal effect. In the second letter Shri M. C. Bhandare writes to Shri B. P. Maheshwari, and states:your clients, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, have enquired from you as to how His Lordship Mr Justice A. P. Sen, in his judgment has made the following observations:shri M. C. Bhandare, learned counsel appearing for respondent 3 and 4, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Zonal Engineer (Buildings), city Zone, Municipal Corporation, Delhi is fair enough to state that if the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. , were to make an application for modification of the sanctioned plan pertaining to the new building with respect to the basement and the working platform which according to the Municipal Corporation constitute double ba