Mukul Mudgal, J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this review petition is taken up for hearing. Review is sought of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th April 2006 in respect of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner in the village Ranhola by the award No.8/1996-97. The judgment of this Court enhanced the compensation assessed by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act to Rs.1 lakh per bigha. The main ground of review is that the judgment loses sight of the Ex.A2 produced by the appellant which had indicated the value of the land in 1990 to be Rs.1.25 lakhs per bigha whereas the judgment only awarded Rs.1 lakh per bigha for a Section 4 notification issued on 6th January 1995. The review petitioner by way of the present petition seeks review of the judgment and decree dated 27th April 2006 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. Review has been sought on account of the error apparent pointed out on the record by the learned counsel for the appellant as recorded in paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 27th April 2006. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment reads as follows:

24. On proper analysis of the factual matrix of the case, evidence on record and the principles of law afore referred it is clear that in terms of Ex-A2, sale deed relating to October 1994, the land in the adjacent village of Mundka was sold @ Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha and by reducing the amount for better developed areas and location etc., it will be just and fair to assess the compensation payable to the claimants @ Rs.1 lakh per bigha. As per Ex.R2, in the revenue estate of the same village, a land measuring about 1 bigha was sold for Rs.97,000/- in the year 1994, nearly 6 months prior to the date of notification, as such the claimants would be entitled to some increase because of increase in the price of the land as exhibited by Ex.R2 and R3. Thus, even on that basis the compensation of Rs.1 lakh per bigha would be fair. Even in terms of policy of the Government fixing the market value of the land at Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre, the price of the land would still come to Rs.1,11,178.84 per bigha. We have already held that the government cannot be bound by this policy as it real purpose was not to determine the air market value of the land at the time of acquisition but was to prevent evasion of revenue and taxes etc. In these circumstances, from whatever angle the claim of the appellants is viewed, the appellants are bound to succeed partially. Consequently, we set aside the judgment of the Reference Court dated 24.10.2005 and partially allow the appeals and assess the compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their lands @ Rs.1 lakh per bigha. They would obviously be entitled to all statutory benefits of interest and Section 23 of the Act even on the enhanced compensation. The appellants would also be entitled to proportionate costs."

(emphasis supplied)

2. It has been highlighted by Mr. Maan, the learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant that the Court has proceeded in the aforesaid judgment by what was perceived by it to be the date of Ex.A2, i.e., the Sale Deed said to be of October 1994, when in fact the Sale Deed was of 27th February 1990. He has thus submitted that since the Court itself has recorded in its finding in paragraph 19 of the judgment that the land located in the adjoining village Mundka relating to Ex.A2 was only slightly better than the acquired land, and both the lands had industrial and residential growth potential, therefore, the slightly better placement of village Mundka relating to Ex.A2 in the year 1990 was counter balanced by the passage of 5 years from the date of acquisition of the village Safipur Ranaula and this fact has been lost sight of in the judgment by wrongly treating the Ex.A2 Sale Deed to be of year 1994 when it was actually in February 1990.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has further submitted