SURYA KANT, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of the above-captioned review applications seeking to recall the orders dated 03.05.2011 and 05.08.2011. The first order dated 03.05.2011 whereby the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn recites that "After arguing for some time, when confronted with a ratio of a judgement passed in 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 468 : CWP No.29 of 2004 titled as Jasmer Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. decided on 26.09.2007 attached as Annexure P2 with this petition, counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this writ petition. Ordered accordingly.".
(2.) The review applicant/petitioners thereafter moved Civil Misc. Applications for the recall of the above-reproduced order and to decide the writ petitions on merits. The plea taken was that the dispute raised by them was not covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in Jasmer Singh's case. The Division Bench was, however, not impressed by the submission. It briefly noticed the facts and the legal issues decided in Jasmer Singh's case and thereafter dismissed the misc. applications on 05.08.2011 with the following observations:- "When we asked counsel for the applicants as to what is the different ground on the basis of which this writ petition has been filed as the question of law had already been settled by this Court in Jasmer Singh's case (supra), it was argued that the previous acquisition was at Mohali and the present acquisition is at Bathinda. This writ petition was filed by the same counsel, who was also a counsel in Jasmer Singh's case (supra). We are not going to subscribe to an idea that once question of law is settled, merely fresh acquisition has been ordered to challenge exemption granted under Section 178(2) of the 1995 Act, a fresh writ petition can be filed. The present writ petition was totally misconceived one. In view of above, the counsel, who appeared before this Court on May 3, 2011, rightly withdrew this writ petition when confronted with the ratio of the judgment in Jasmer Singh's case (supra)."
(3.) The aggrieved petitioners challenged the above-stated order in Special Leave Petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide interim order dated 04.05.2012, permitted the respondent-Bathinda Development Authority (BDA) to complete all other formalities and development activities of the area in dispute but restrained from creating third party rights without permission of the Court.;