IMPORTANT POINT
Aggrieved parties can seek review of judicial orders even if not originally involved, and concessions made by a delegatee beyond their authority are not binding on the delegator.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Defence Estate Officer, Siliguri Circle, and Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (hereinafter referred to as the review applicants for the sake of convenience) have applied for review of the orders dated November 21, 2016 and December 6, 2016 passed in MAT No. 1147 of 2015.

2. Review applicants have filed an application being CAN 1 of 2018 for condonation of delay in filing the review application and CAN 3 of 2021 for leave to review the order dated November 21, 2016 and December 6, 2016. Since the pending applications along with the memorandum of review have been heard analogously over a number of days by us, we propose to dispose of the pending applications along with the memorandum of review by this judgement and order.

3. Learned advocate for the review applicants has submitted that, the review applicants were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition or in the appeal. Consequently, the review applicants were not aware of the orders passed either by the writ court or by the Appeal Court. The two orders of which review has been sought, adversely and prejudicially affect the right title and interest of the review applicants. He has contended that, the coordinate bench by an order dated February 24, 2021 condoned the delay in filing the review application. The review applicants have complied with the direction for depositing the costs as awarded by the order dated February 24, 2021.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the review applicants has contended that, by a writing dated December 20, 1971 the Land Acquisition Officer, Darjeeling had made over possession of 21.54 acres of land to the predecessor in office of the review applicants No. 2. The review applicants have been in possession over the subject property ever since. The subject property has been utilised for the purpose of construction of 220 residential quarters for defence personnel.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the review applicants has submitted that, pursuant to directions issued by the District Magistrate the amount of compensation has been deposited by the review applicants. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 had wrongfully and illegally claimed ownership of 21.13 acres of land. Such opposite parties had filed writ petitions being Matter No. 2193 of 1996 and WP No. 15616 (W) of 2024. None of the review applicants had been made parties to such writ petitions. WP No. 15616 (W) of 2004 was heard ex parte and allowed by the learned single judge on November 29, 2014. State Government had filed an appeal being MAT No. 1147 of 2015 (FMA No. 755 of 2017) challenging the order dated October 29, 2014. Such appeal along with the application for condonation of delay had been taken up for hearing on November 21, 2016. In such appeal, advocate for the State government had consented for setting aside of the acquisition of 21.13 acres of land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. State government had through their advocate submitted before the Appeal Court that the State was willing to acquire 21.13 acres of land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Such order had been communicated by the State Government to the office of the review applicants No. 2 on December 20, 2016 when the review applications became aware of the orders under review. Thereafter, the review applicants had obtained legal opinion and filed the present memorandum of review. Relying upon 2019 Volume 18 Supreme Court Cases 586 (Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Others) learned advocate appearing for the review applicants has submitted that the review applicants are aggrieved parties and are therefore entitled to apply for review of the two orders passed by the Appeal Court. He has contended that, a notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued in which the predecessor in interest of Terai Tea Co Ltd (h