ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. The instant review petition has been filed to review the order dated 04.07.2019 passed in WPC No. 714/2019. The review petition appears to have been filed on 05.08.2019. The following substantive order was passed in WPC No. 714/2019:-

“8. The Sahmati Patra which is relied on by the Municipal Corporation, which speaks of the fact that the parties thereto do not want compensation. This document do not contain the name of the petitioner and the signature of the petitioner is also not there on such document, the same is Annexure P-2. Therefore, the submission of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has relinquished his right of compensation by such Sahmati Patra/ consent letter cannot be accepted. The letter which is filed as Annexure R-1 by the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner's signature has been obtained but reading of such letter do not show that the petitioner at any time disclaimed his right to get the compensation. Consequently, if other persons have not claimed the compensation, the petitioner cannot be enveloped by other adjacent land owners consent who decided to leave compensation for acquisition of property for the reason the road and drain is constructed.

9. Article 300A of the Constitution gives the right to the person and mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Municipal Corporation as a State cannot therefore resort to an arm twisting method so as to shelve the provisions of Article 300A. The Act of 2013 to acquire the land exists in the statute book, therefore, the Municipal Corporation who is a body corporate is also expected to adhere to the rules of the law of land instead to follow forceful acquisition of land. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the respondent No.1, Municipal Corporation, shall commence the proceeding for acquisition of land under the Act of 2013 and shall calculate the extent of land acquired of the petitioner and the necessary orders may be passed as per law and compensation should be paid to him.

10. Considering the age of the petitioner that he is senior citizen, it is directed that the aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within the outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With such observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Municipal Corporation) would submit that one Thalesh Chandra Dubey has concealed certain facts that he has sold the property to different persons and the drain and the road was prepared for the benefit of all, which he deliberately suppressed in the initial petition WPC No. 714/2019. It is stated that it would be evident from the Nazri Naksha dated 26.07.2019 which is filed in this case and the map would show that the petitioner has sold the plot 1 to 7 of Om Prakash Jain to Sureshwari Jain. Therefore under the circumstances the petitioner cannot be given the compensation and the order requires to be reviewed.

4. Opposing the argument, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in this review petition refers to Annexure P/3 dated 15.06.2017 which reads as under:-

^^mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vkids }kjk nyir lkxj okMZ Ø- 18 dh Hkwfe [kljk ua- 99@1@4 {ks=Qy 1-85 ,dM+ xk;=h uxj ds ihNs fLFkr gS esa fuxe }kjk ukyh fuekZ.k fd;s tkus ds dkj.k eqvkotk dh ekax dh xbZ gSA

mDr LFky esa iwoZ ls gh dPph ukyh gksus ds dkj.k ikuh dh fudklh ds fy, fuxe }kjk mlh dPph ukyh dks iDdh ukyh esa ifjofrZr fd;k x;k gSA fuekZ.k ds le; vkids }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vkifRr ntZ ugha djkbZ xbZ vkSj uk gh bl laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk nh xbZ FkhA

vr% vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr Hkwfe dk vfHkys[k dh izfr ,oa lhekadu izfrosnu 03 fnol ds Hkhrj izLrqr djs rkfd izdj.k dk voyksdu dj mfpr dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA^^

5. He further refers to document Annexure P/6 and would submit that the communication made by the Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam Jagdalpur on 21.01.2019 in which it was stated that the road was made on the basis of the conse