Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 demands clean hands and full disclosure of material facts like prior arbitration; suppression justifies dismissal. Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 limited to patent errors, not merits re-appreciation.

JUDGMENT :

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel Mr. Manorkar for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned AGP for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. By this review application the applicant – original petitioner is seeking review of order dated 06.07.2022, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2137/2021, by which, this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the applicant herein. The circumstance in which this Court had passed the order under review can be summarized as follows :

2.1 The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2137/2021, thereby, contending that his land bearing Gut No.257, situated at Village Adgaon (Budruk), Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad, was acquired by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The petitioner also contended that before passing of the award he raised an objection regarding non-mentioning of the sweet lime trees and custard apple trees correctly.

2.2 It was further contended that ultimately award came to be passed on 11.10.2017 without including the valuation of sweet lime trees and custard apple trees. The petitioner further contended that the objection raised by him in respect of fruit bearing plants was not considered. On the contrary, his claim came to be rejected by the respondent authorities by communication dated 09.11.2020, and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by challenging the said decision of the respondent authorities as well as seeking direction against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to prepare an award in respect of fruit bearing plants and for disbursing amount accordingly. It was also prayed that in the light of claim decided by the respondent authorities in respect of his brother, the petitioner be treated at par with the claim of his brother and be paid the amount of compensation accordingly.

2.3 It appears that respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their affidavit in reply in the writ petition and had pointed out that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-inclusion of the fruit bearing plants, the petitioner initially had approached the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short the Act of 1956), and the Arbitrator vide its award dated 27.06.2019 had already decided the proceedings against which the petitioner had even filed proceedings before the learned District Judge which was pending.

2.4 This Court after considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.1 to 3 found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact about filing of Arbitration Application before the Arbitrator as well as passing of award and challenge raised to the said award passed by the Arbitrator before the learned District Judge. This Court, therefore, by an order dated 06.07.2022, dismissed the writ petition on both the grounds i.e. suppression of material facts as well as the petitioner having availed the statutory remedy before the learned District Judge. This Court while dismissing the writ petition had made it clear that the rival contentions of the parties are kept open for being considered by the learned District Judge on its own merits after hearing the parties. It is this order, which is sought to be reviewed by way of this review application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not aware of filing of the said proceeding as the advocate representing the applicant before an arbitrator and the learned District Judge had obtained his signatures on blank papers and, the applicant was unawa