The petitioner had no enforceable right, especially after the order was passed in the earlier writ petition, and the only liberty given was to file an application under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, which the petitioner had not exercised.

1. This review application is filed by the original writ petitioner seeking to review the order passed by this court in W.P.(MD)No.10038 of 2009, dated 28.02.2011. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to forbear the respondents from interfering with the his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprising in S.No.62/2 measuring to an extent of 0.07.0 ares.

2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 28.2.2011, a memo was filed by the executive Officer of the Pudukkottai Temples offering to provide one shop on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- which is situated opposite to the Narthamalai Muthumariamman Temple belonging to the Pudukkottai Devasthanam for a period of two years. If the petitioner wanted renewal of the shop after two years, that will be considered. When this memo, dated 28.2.2011 was filed, the counsel appearing for the petitioner had accepted the proposal in addition to payment of compensation on the basis of the Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act. The third respondent had expressed his willingness to allot the shop and agreed to pay the award amount. Therefore, this court had directed the Executive Officer to execute necessary lease agreement in favour of the petitioner in respect of the shop constructed by them opposite to the Narthamalai Muthumariamman Temple coming under the Pudukkottai Devasthanam within a period of eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with the said direction by K.K.Sasidharan, J. It was also informed to this court that the petitioner was also present in court at the relevant time and his consent was obtained by the then counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen.

3. After the order copy was sent to the original writ petitioner, he had second thoughts on the order. Therefore, claiming his ignorance about the proposal, he filed the review application with a delay of 23 days after engaging another counsel. He stated that the counsel who had appeared in the writ petition had accepted the offer made by the third respondent without his instructions. As he did not have funds immediately, he had mobilized funds and filed the review application on legal advise. This court without going into the merits of the averments condoned the delay and directed the review application to be numbered and be posted for hearing.

4. The grounds found in the review application particularly ground Nos.2,3 and 4 are material for this case and they read as follows:

“2.The learned Judge ought to have seen that before passing an order the parties consent has obtained.

3. The learned Judge ought to have verify before passing an order written consent was given by the party.

4. The learned Judge ought to have seen before passing an order the concession given by the counsel without instruction from his client is not binding on the petitioner.”

5. Opposing these grounds, the Executive Officer had field a counter affidavit, dated 21.11.2011 which was served on the counsel for the petitioner. With reference to ground Nos.2,3 and 4 raised in the review application, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter, it was answered as follows:

“4.It is submitted the ground No.2 in the Review Petition is totally wrong. The Learned Judge before passing the order, enquired both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent present in the court on the date of the order. After both the parties given consent for the present order, the learned Judge subsequently directing the 3rd respondent to file the memo regarding the rent amount and the same was filed on the same day after recording the same, the Writ Petition was closed in the presence of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

5. It is submitted the ground Nos.3 & 4 in the Review Petition are totally wrong. The learned Judge made an enquiry to the parties directly. Hence, concession order given by the counsel of the petitioner without instruction from the review petitioner is not true for the sake of the review petitioner convenience