- (1.) The appellant claims that certain land was sold to it by Respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 5 and 6 dispute this contention. On the ground that the land had been acquired without payment of compensation, Respondents 5 and 6 filed an application u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 before the District Judge. The District Judge held in favour of Respondents 5 and 6 by an order dated 6.04.1990. Being aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan, Respondent 1 herein, filed an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal was pending, the appellant moved an application for impleadment. That application for impleadment was kept pending. Without disposing of the application, on 31.07.2001, the State's appeal itself was disposed of by the High Court. The appellant filed an application for review. The review application was admitted by the High Court observing that the name of the counsel for the appellant had not been shown on the cause list on the relevant date.
(2.) While the review application was pending, the appellant sought to file an appeal from the order dated 31.07.2001 before this Court by way of a special leave petition. Incidentally, the State of Rajasthan as well as the Jaipur Development Authority also impugned the order of the High Court disposing of the appeal. As far as their special leave petitions are concerned, leave has been granted and the appeals are pending. As far as the appellant's special leave petition was concerned, it was dismissed without giving any reasons at all.
(3.) After the dismissal of its special leave petition, the appellant sought to revive its review application before the High Court. The High Court by the order impugned in this appeal held that the review petition was not maintainable in view of the fact that the special leave petition from the order sought to be reviewed had been dismissed. According to the High Court, the ratio of the decision in Kunhayammed V/s. State of Kerala did not apply and the principle of judicial discipline and propriety demanded that the order of the High Court disposing of the appeal should not be reopened.;