The review jurisdiction is available to a litigant only if he could not secure material evidence or documents which would have otherwise altered the decision of the Court, or if new evidence comes to light which has a material bearing on the decision.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.-By these proceedings, review of the judgment and order of this Court dated 17th December, 2004, in which the writ petition No. 745/86 was disposed of has been claimed.

2. In the writ petition a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7.6.85 was questioned on various grounds. The suit lands had been notified under Section 4(1) of the Acton 25.11.80. This Court had considered the averments on behalf of the petitioner and delivered final judgment dismissing the petition. The present review petition is premised on the ground that the petitioners predecessors-in-interest had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act which was not brought to the notice of the •Court. It was contended that this circumstance amounted to sufficient cause to enable this Court to review the judgment and order dated 7.12.2004, dismissing the writ petition.

3. The relevant averment in the review petition, which is the mainstay of the entire review proceeding reads as follows:

"That the above petition came lip for final disposal on 17.12.2004 along with other writ petitions before this Honble Court when the same was dismissed by this Honble Court with the other listed writ petitions. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners in para 8 of the above said writ petition have wrongly mentioned that the petitioners along with other land owners within the revenue estate of village Chattarpur who were also aggrieved by the Section 4 notification, filed there objection under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, to which no personal hearing to the objectors have been afforded by the Collector and no report in respect of objections of the objector have been forwarded to the Government of India. It is necessary and in the interest of justice here to point out that the predecessor and interest i.e. Mr. R.L. Sahni filed his 5A objection with regard to the land in question and inadvertently at the time of filing of the above said writ petitions the same could not be highlighted which resulted in dismissal of writ petitions."

4. Mr. N.S. Vashisht, learned Counsel on the basis of the above averments submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of declaration given by this Court in the judgment dated Balakram Gupta v. Union of India, 37 (1989) DLT 150 (referred to in the main judgment as "Balakram-II"). A Division Bench of this Court had, by that decision, invalidated the acquisition on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice in regard to hearing and disposing objections to land acquisition, so far as the petitioner/objectors were concerned.

5. Mr. N.S. Vashisht, learned Counsel submitted that at the time of filing the writ petition, the relevant averment in Paragraph 8 was that no objection under Section SA had been preferred after notification under Section 4(1) was issued. Counsel contended that this was an inadvertent omission because at that time, the predecessors in interest who had title to the suit lands, had in fact preferred objections. Counsel contended that the mistake in pleadings ought not to visit the litigant with harsh consequences and that the present petitioner was entitled to the declaration in Balakra17lII as he undisputedly fell within the class of litigants legitimately entitled to be called as objectors to the acquisition.

6. The review proceeding was opposed by the respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner was expected to support his case in all material particulars and aver all the grounds that should have been urged, at the time he approached the Court. If indeed the petitioner was entitled to be treated as an objector, he would have said so, in the first instance, in 1986. He chose not to do so for the period of 18 years when the proceedings were pending. He only woke up after the judgment was delivered and claimed that his predecessor was an objector in the review filed before this Court. Counsel also contended that apart from this, the