The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of 'sufficient reason' for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the application of the doctrine of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' and subsequent events for rectifying its own mistake.

1. This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking review of the Judgment & Order dated 10.07.2017, passed in WP (C) No. 123/2016.

Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel for the review petitioners at the outset has drawnly attention of this Court to Para 11 in the Judgment & Order dated 10.07.2017. Paragraph 11 may be quoted as below:-

"11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the State respondents to take a decision as to whether the land acquisition proceedings should be initiated and completed in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or by the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 and its Amendment within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The respondent No. 2 i.e., the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Mizoram shall cause necessary process to ensure that the decision is taken by the State Government within a stipulated time as directed. Upon the decision being taken, the respondents shall proceed with the acquisition proceedings and complete the entire exercise within a period of 5 (five) months. It is also made clear that the State respondents would be at liberty to consider the case of other similarly situated land owners who are affected due to the construction and up-gradation of KDZKT Road. Liberty is also given to the State respondents to deduct the financial assistance already given to the petitioners and those similarly situated."

3. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel has also drawnly attention of this Court to common Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 20 & 30/2014, whereby this Court has held that (Mizoram Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 (Mizoram LA Act, 2016) , has been held to be not applicable in the State of Mizoram. Consequently, the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) which repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was directed to be applied against the claim of the petitioners therein. The learned counsel submits that this Court in WP (C) No. 123/2016 had directed the State respondents to take a decision as to whether the acquisition proceedings upon the land of the petitioners should be carried out in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Mizoram LA Act, 2016 within a time frame, but however, since the Mizoram LA Act, 2016 was held to be not applicable in WP (C) Nos. 20 & 30/2014 and the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 having been repealed by the Act of 2013, the Judgment & Order dated 10. 07.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 123/2016 may be reviewed. The learned counsel further submits that the grounds taken in the Review Petition are good grounds for review and in fact, subsequent development can also be taken into consideration by the Court in appropriate cases. In this connection, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr., vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 741.

4. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate submits that Court may consider the Review Petition if the same is within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 as well as Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. She also submits that if the Court is inclined to allow the Review Petition, the respondent authorities may be given a reasonable time to comply with the directions passed in the judgment & order under Review.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record.

6. It is an established position in law that a review is not an appeal in disguise. In considering a Review Petition, Court cannot be called upon to re-hear the case afresh. The scope of review is limited and it is only when the conditions contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 are satisfied that the Court would be inclined to review its Order. Order 4