Gupta, C.J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed an application for review of an order dated 31.7.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11468/2015 (PIL) (Surendra Pratap Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others) whereby the writ petition was dismissed for the reason that such writ petition is not maintainable in public interest as the aggrieved persons are the land owners and not the social workers. The Court has passed the following order :

“The challenge in the present petition is to the notification dated 4.6.1983 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the proclamation issued by the Collector under section 21 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on 4.6.1983 whereby, the village Gogital, Sezwahi, Kusmaha, Kothia, Keseru, Bamera, Badwahi and Bagaiha were declared to be ‘Panpatha sanctuary’.

The petitioners are not the land owners of the aforesaid villages, but, said to be social workers. The aggrieved persons are the land owners and not the social workers who can be permitted to espouse the cause vested with the land owners.

Consequently, the present writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the social workers and is dismissed.”

2. The State has issued a Notification on 4.6.1983 (Annexure P-1) under section 18(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “the 1972 Act”), which was published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 24.6.1983. Vide the said Notification, an area of 245.842 Square Kilometer was declared as Panpatha Sanctuary. The Collector, Shahdol issued a proclamation under section 21 of the 1972 Act on 8.11.1996 (Annexure P-2) in respect of eight villages, namely, Gogital, Sezwahi, Kusmaha, Kothia, RP Keseru, Bamera, Badwahi and Bagaiha, which were going to be affected under Panpatha Sanctuary, whereby objections were invited from the interested persons.

3. The petitioners assert that a survey was conducted for rehabilitation of local inhabitants and that National Tiger Conservation Authority issued revised guidelines for rehabilitation of displaced persons whose land has since fallen within the Project Tiger. The grievance is that the package has not been revised though it was issued in the year 2008.

4. The petitioners have filed a writ petition claiming that the affected persons are marginal farmers and they have no means to approach this Court and therefore, as public spirited persons, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the 2013 Act”) to contend that no Award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 has been announced. Therefore, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall apply. It is also pointed out that since the possession has not been taken, the land owners would be entitled to compensation under section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act or in the alternative the vesting of the land stands abated in terms of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

5. In the return filed by the respondents-State, it is inter alia asserted that the petitioners have not given their complete antecedents and have also not disclosed as to what public interest work they have performed in the society. It is also pointed out that Notification, Annexure P-1 was issued on 4.6.1983 and Annexure P-2 was issued on 8.11.1996. However, it has not been explained that why the aforesaid Notifications have not been challenged for long period. It is also pointed out that if any person is aggrieved by the said Notifications, the same can be challenged only by the affected person(s). Reference is made to section 25A of the 1972 Act, which contemplates that Notification for acquisition will not lapse if the proceedings are not completed within a period of two years. It is also pointed out that in respect of four villages like Magedi, Milli, Mehanwah and Kal