- (1.) Counsel for applicant- petitioner Sri Shiv Sagar Singh present. None appears on behalf of opposite party- respondent.
(2.) This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 03-03-2011 disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner and with following order: "Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Buddh Nagar, who is present in person before this Court, is directed to release the compensation amount to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication. The compensation amount shall be paid as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of. "
(3.) The judgment was passed after hearing the then learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant Sri Pankaj Mithal. The review application has been filed through Sri Shiv Sagar Singh who had neither filed the writ petition nor had argued nor there is any reflection either from the review application or from the record of the case that he was present at the time of arguments. The question of propriety of filing a review petition and arguments by a new counsel who did not appear in the earlier proceedings, has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. N. Raj Reddiar, 1997 AIR(SC) 1005 wherein it was observed as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Sri Sudarsh Menon was the advocate on record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Sri Prabir Choudhary who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor he was present at the time of argument. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition, as if, it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review it would not be in the interest or profession to permit such practice.";