R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

These Misc. Civil Applications are filed seeking review of the common judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 576 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 459 of 2013 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 577 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 929 of 2013 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 578 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2058 of 2013 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 688 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 7875 of 2013. The aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals were filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against the common judgment dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 459 of 2013 and other allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions by directing the appellants to deposit and pay the compensation as contemplated under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and as per awards dated 28.08.2012 and 18.09.2012, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order with interest.

2. While disposing of the said Letters Patent Appeals, for the purpose of disbursement of amount of compensation deposited in the matters, this Court has issued some guidelines in paragraph No. 3 of the judgment. Said paragraph No. 3 reads as under:

“3. We have heard Mr. Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellants and learned advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record. With a view to strike balance between the diverse interests of claimants and the appellant-Corporation, we lay down the following further guidelines in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan (supra) to be followed by the lower Courts in future while making disbursement of the deposited compensation by the appellant-Gas Authority of India Limited.

(a) The entire awarded amount by Competent Authority u/s 10(1) of the Act shall be deposited with the learned District Judge u/s. 10(2) of the Act.

(b) The original claimants shall be allowed to withdraw only 25% of deposited amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge whereas 25% of the amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimants without furnishing security.

(c) The rest of the deposited amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit with any Nationalized Bank for earning interest initially for a period of one year.

(d) If the calculation of the 50% of the claim of an individual claimant does not exceed Rs. 2,00,000/- then in that case, the whole of the amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn without any security. Thereafter with effect from 01.04.2016 a 10% rise on the principal amount may be added keeping in mind the present trend in the economy and interest may be calculated accordingly.

(e) The applications under Section 10(2) of the Act which are pending before the learned District Judge shall be decided by the learned District Judge within a period of one year from today if the said proceedings are not stayed by any higher forum.”

3. These Misc. Civil Applications are filed stating that guidelines issued by this Court will operate on the appellants and will cause lot of financial burden. It is stated in the applications that as against the awards passed by the Competent Authority, it is open to the aggrieved person to seek interim relief by way of stay under section 10 of the Act and this Court has not considered the said provision while delivering the judgment. It is categorically stated that if such applications are filed seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 27.03.2015 only for the future cases to avoid financial burden and economic hardship to the appellants, the same will not have any bearing on the respondent claimants, whose disbursements were already made. It is further pleaded that fr