ORDER :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. The present Review petition has been filed seeking Review of the Judgment dated 06.12.2019 passed in writ appeal 7/2019 and other connected appeals decided analogously. The judgment against which Review petition has been preferred, was a bunch of Writ Appeals arising out of a common Judgment passed by the Single Bench of this High Court dated 18.09.2018 in Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 3154/2017 and other connected Writ Petitions where the Writ Court had initially dismissed these Writ Petitions declining to interfere with the course of action pursued by the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) regarding fixation of compensation upon compulsory acquisition of land belonging to the Writ Petitioners. The Order against which the Review has been preferred was one which was decided on 16.12.2019.

2. The Review petition has been filed primarily seeking Review of the order so far as the maintainability of the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, on the ground that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was not granted a fair and reasonable opportunity of defending their case. It was also the contention of the Review Petitioner that the Writ Appeals have been allowed by the Division Bench on mere asking of the same in a mechanical manner without deliberating upon the legal and factual aspects as regards the claim put forth by the Writ Petitioners.

3. It was also the contention of the Review Petitioner that as the NHAI was not given a chance to file a detail reply to the Writ Petitions and the bunch of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals have been decided only on the primarily objections filed by them. That now as a consequence of the Writ Appeals being allowed, the NHAI as such has been rendered remedy less. It was also the contention of the Review Petitioner that the Petitioners had in fact earlier filed Writ Petitions for the same relief which was withdrawn and now fresh Writ Petitions have been filed with only some cosmetic changes. Since there was no relief earlier granted, the subsequent Writ Petitions itself would not have been maintainable. It was the further contention of the learned counsel for the Review-Petitioner that the issue involved in these Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals were all highly disputed questions of facts and law, which could not have been ventured into by the High Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction. Lastly. It was contended that the finding given by the Division Bench also on the aforesaid grounds are incorrect finding. Therefore, it has to be accepted as an error apparent on the face of record. Further that, the order passed by the Writ Appellate Court also was in contravention to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which again is a strong ground for the Review to be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents opposing the Review Petition submits that none of the grounds that have been raised by the Review Petitioner are the grounds available under the purview of a “Review”. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, by way of the instant Review Petition, the NHAI has literally sought for rehearing of the entire Writ Appeals afresh altogether on its merits which is otherwise not permissible under the Review jurisdiction. It was the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that a Review Petition cannot be entertained on grounds which were neither urged nor canvassed at the first instance. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, what has not been argued, urged and canvassed, cannot be a ground for Review. Rather all the grounds which have been raised and contented are grounds which would be available only by way of an Appeal and the Review petition therefore is not sustainable. It was the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the jurisdict