V. DHANAPALAN, J.

1. Applicants are respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Appeal. They have come forward with the present Review Application to review the judgment, dated 02.09.2008, passed in W.A.No.868 of 2001, by a Division Bench of this Court.

2. The admitted facts are that G.O.Ms.No.1119, dated 15.05.1085, was issued by the Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, requesting the Collector of Coimbatore, to instruct the Land Acquisition Officer to cause publication of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in short, "the Act". It was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 29.05.1985; vernacular newspaper "Daily Thanthi" on 12.06.1985 and in English newspaper "The Indian Express" on 13.06.1985. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued as per G.O.Ms.No.1536, Social Welfare Department, dated 18.06.1986, regarding acquisition of 1.42 acres of land in S.F.No.142/1 of Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore, for Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme and requesting the Collector of Coimbatore to prepare a layout for house sites and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated 20.06.1986; English daily "News Today" on 21.06.1986 and in the locality on 23.06.1986.

3. W.P.No.5220 of 1987 was filed by the owners of the land seeking to quash the above said two G.Os.viz., (1) G.O.Ms.No.1119, dated 15.05.1985, and (2) G.O.Ms.No.1536, dated 18.06.1986. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 06.01.1997, allowed the said Writ Petition, following a covered decision of this Court in the case of Seethalakshmi Ramakrishnananda v. Tahsildar (LA) II, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore. As against the said order of the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal No.868 of 2001 was preferred by the State before the Division Bench. By an order, dated 06.03.2002, in W.A.M.P.No.836 of 2002, interim stay of the order of the learned Single Judge was granted and, ultimately, by the judgment, dated 02.09.2008, the Writ Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench.

4. Now, the applicants, claiming to be the original owners of the land in question, have filed this Review Application, to review the judgment, dated 02.09.2008, passed in W.A.No.868 of 2001 by the Division Bench, on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record.

5. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants is that as per Section 11-A of the Act, final award has not been passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of Section 6 Declaration, even assuming the stay period of three months is taken into account, and that the period of computation has to be followed as per the said Section. He relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in Vijay Narayan Thatte v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (3) SCC 470 and the other in Kunwar Pal Singh (dead) by LRs. v. State of U.P.,2007 (5) SCC 85, regarding the effect of nature of stay order for computation of limitation period and contended that the Division Bench, without considering the said aspect, allowed the Writ Appeal on the sole ground that the decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge in Seethalakshmi Ramakrishnananda's case was not applicable to the case of the applicants, which was against law, and, as such, there is an error apparent on the face of record.

6. Conversely, the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, would contend that Writ Appeal was allowed on 02.09.2008; the present Review Application was filed on 11.08.2010, which was after a lapse of nearly two years and, hence, the Review Application is barred by limitation and not maintainable. He would also argue that final award has been passed within the period of limitation and if the applicants are aggrieved over the judgment of the Division Bench, it is for them to prefer an SLP before the Supreme Court, and, at this stage, there is no need to review the said judgment.

7. We have heard