The jurisdiction for review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, and the authority of a GPA holder to file a petition on behalf of the petitioners is subject to the petitioners' consent.

( 1 ) THE aforesaid writ petition was filed in the name of three petitioners, namely, S/s. Bal Ram, Dewan Singh and Gian Ram all sons of late Shri har Chand. It was filed through Smt. Sumita Rai claiming herself to be the General power of Attorney (GPA) holder and a copy of the said GPA dated 5. 2. 1990 was enclosed as annexure to the writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, gian Ram, one of the petitioners, filed CM 12454/2003 for dismissal of the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question belonged to him as well as his two brothers and Smt. Sumita Rai was never authorised to file any such petition. Reference was made to certain proceedings pending between the parties in Suit No. 1486/89 which was filed in this Court and has since been transferred to District court. It was also stated in the application that one of the petitioners, namely, Bal ram passed away on 27. 5. 1994 and on his death alleged GPA stood revoked by operation of law.

( 2 ) WHEN this application came up for hearing on November 21,2003, Counsel for the Union of India also made a statement that possession of the land in question had already been taken on 12. 4. 2000 before filing of the petition. After hearing the parties, writ petition was dismissed by passing the following order: "it is a case of the Union of India that the possession of the land in questipn has been already taken on 12. 5. 2000 and the amount is lying with the Court in Suit no. 1486/89. Today before us, Counsel appearing for Smt. Sumita Rai has stated that she has purchased the rights in the property in question from the erstwhile owner, Shri Bal Ram and others. The parties are agitating before the civil Court also for the rights of the property and, therefore, it will be for the civil Court to decide so far as the rights are concerned. So far as the present petition is concerned, we dismiss the petition as the possession has already been taken and the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the petition. The petition stands dismissed accordingly. "

( 3 ) PRESENT application is now filed seeking review of the aforesaid order.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the review petitioner that Suit No. 1486 / 89 is filed by one Smt. Santosh Garg in which the three petitioners were arrayed as the defendants. Suit was filed on the averments that these three petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell the land in question to said Smt. Santosh Garg and in the written statement filed by the petitioners, the petitioners had specifically admitted that vide agreement to sell dated 2. 1. 1989 they had transferred the land in question to Smt. Sumita Rai wife of Shri S. K. Rai for a total sale consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/ -. It is also contended by the review petitioner that application was filed only by one of the three petitioners, namely, Gian Ram and other two brothers had not filed any application for dismissal of the writ petition. Thus it is onlvigian Ram who denied execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Sumita Rai which fact was not denied by the other two brothers and, therefore, writ petition could not be dismissed on the basis of averments made by Gian Ram in the af oresaid application. It is also stated that a false statement was made that possession of the land has been taken. In fact a batch of writ petitions involving same question is pending consideration and review petitioner should also be given a chance to argue the matter along with those writ petitions.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage that when the matter was heard on 27. 2. 2004, there was a dispute as to whether the review petitioner had paid entire sale consideration. An affidavit is not filed in which it is alleged that although Rs. 1,28,000/- was paid at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 2. 1. 1989, thereafter amount was paid in various instalments through different cheques. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was also paid in cash on 5. 2. 1990 and,