JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.

In Re: Civil Misc. (Review! Application No. 76758 of 2017 filed in Writ-C No. 11157 of 2013

In Re: Civil Misc. (Review) Application No. 76755 of 2017 filed in Writ-C No. 11159 of 2013

In Re: Civil Misc. (Review) Application No. 76750 of 2017 filed in Writ-C No. 20719 of 2013

In Re: Civil Misc. (Review) Application No. 76733 of 2017 filed in Writ-C No. 7490 of 2012

In Re: Civil Misc. (Review) Application No. 76728 of 2017 filed in Writ-C No. 56451 of 2011

In Re: Civil Misc. (Review) Application No. 76739 of 2017 filed in Writ-C No. 55314 of 2011

In Re: Civil Misc. (Review) Application No. 76745 of 2017 filed in Writ-C No. 54341 of 2010

Heard Sri Manish Goyal learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar, Sri Kamaljeet Singh and Sri Suresh Singh learned counsels appearing for the respondent authority M Sri P.K. Chaurasia and Ms. Sarita Shukla learned counsels for the opposite parties/writ petitioners on the review applications related to the acquisition of the land of Village Mirzapur.

2. This bunch of review petitions is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2016 passed by this Court in allowing seven writ petitions challenging acquisition notifications under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, with the direction to the State to determine and pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Lair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013"), treating the date of acquisition notification as 22.12.2016, same as the date of the judgment. The claim for compensation for constructions standing over the lands in question on the date of preliminary notification was also directed to be computed.

3. The aforesaid directions had been issued while holding that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 were bad as the decision of the State Government for invoking power under section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, for invocation of the urgency clause, was without any material for invoking such power. On the statement of the counsels for the writ petitioners, therein while noticing that no award had been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer with reference to the notifications under challenge, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2017) 11 SCC 339, [Civil Appeal No. 11501 of 2011] decided on 30.11.2016, it was concluded that since the notifications for acquisition were held bad, the tenure holders were entitled for compensation under the Act, 2013.

4. Before going into the rival contentions of the counsels for the parties to examine the merits of the review petition, we would like to discuss the law pertaining to concept and scope of review so as to assess as to whether review is permissible in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power of review on the Courts; it may be reproduced as under:-

"Section 114. Review. - Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply-or a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. "

Order 47, Rule 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides application for review of judgment which reads as under:-

"Order XLVII Rule 1(1). Application for review of judgment:-

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or Order from w