Power of review can be exercised only to correct an error apparent on face of record and not to correct an erroneous decision.

(Prayer:- Review applications are filed against the order dated 05.03.2003 passed in CMP Nos.648 and 759 of 2003 in A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 2001 on the file of this court.)

K. Mohan Ram, J.

The above Review Applications have been filed to review the order dated 05.03.2003 passed in CMP Nos.648 and 759 of 2003 in A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 2001 respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the Review Applicants are as follows:

(i) One Mr. M.Kullamma Naicker owned 445 acres in Balasamudhram Village, Palani Taluk. On 23.12.1959 he sold the lands to M/s. Narendra Diary Farm Private Limited, the fifth Respondent herein for a total consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. But only a sum of Rs.10,000/- alone was paid and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- was withheld as unpaid sale consideration. On 30.03.1960, the fifth respondent herein, re-conveyed 31.79 acres out of 445 acres for Rs.16,000/- and the said sum of Rs.16,000/- was adjusted out of the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,65,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was the unpaid sale consideration. According to the Review Applicants, after the death of Kullamma Naicker, the Review Applicants, as his legal heirs, continued in possession and the fifth respondent company passed a resolution to that effect on 27.07.1969.

(ii) On 29.04.1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the construction of a dam over a river and issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Review Applicants, which according to the Review Applicants was issued, as the applicants were persons interested in possession. According to the Review Applicants, the Tamil Nadu Government took possession from them on 01.03.1972 and between 1972 and 1988, they sent several representations seeking compensation.

(iii) It is their further case that the Government allowed the acquisition proceedings to lapse. Thereafter in 1990 the Government of Tamil Nadu initiated fresh land acquisition proceedings but no notice was given to the Review Applicants. But notice was given only to the fifth respondent company and awards were passed in Award Nos.8 and 9 on 10.02.1993. On a reference sought for by the contesting respondents herein, the same was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub-Court, Palani in LAOP Nos.6 and 7 of 1996 and in the year 2001 the Court enhanced the compensation. The Government of Tamil Nadu filed A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 2001 against the judgment and Decree passed in LAOP Nos.6 and 7 of 1996 and the appeals are pending before this Court.

(iv) The Review Applicants filed CMP Nos.648 and 759 of 2003 to implead them as parties in the said appeals on the basis that they are persons interested as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. By a common order dated 05.03.2003 the Division Bench dismissed CMP Nos.648 and 759 of 2003. The above Review Applications are filed to review the above said order dated 05.03.2003. While dismissing the impleading petitions the Division Bench in Paragraphs 9 and 10 has observed as follows:-

“9. When possession was taken from the petitioners and the dam was constructed thereafter, the petitioners’ possessory right is lost. The claim of the petitioners is that they were in possession of the land under acquisition only in lieu of the interest on the unpaid sale consideration. When the petitioners had only a lien over the unpaid sale consideration, they can proceed against the property only in respect of such claim alone. In the case of compulsory acquisition by invoking the powers of the eminent domain, the land vests with the Government or the requisitioning body, free of all encumbrances. In such circumstance, definitely the petitioner cannot have any right over the land. To exercise their right to recover the unpaid sale consideration, they need not be impleaded as party/respondents in these appeal, as they have no say in the quantum of compensation which is