- (1.) AS prayed by Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out are ignored.
(2.) THIS Civil Review Application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 1.4.2011, passed in WPC No. 1003 of 2011. Mr. Shivnath referred to the following prayer made in the writ petition - "It may be pertinent to mention here that in the impugned notification dated 9th August, 2010 (Annexure -3) of the initiation of acquisition of Plot No. 527 is not being included and, therefore, the Mandir which stands on the portion of Plot No. 527 is not subjected to acquisition and, therefore, the acquisition of the lands adjacent to Plot Nos. 527 and 528 cannot be subject matter of acquisition under National Highways Act, 1956 . He argued that the said aspect was not considered and therefore the appellate court permitted the petitioners to file this review application vide order dated 17.07.2012, passed in LPA No. 155 of 2011. He then argued that as the said plot no. 527 was not mentioned in the notification, petitioner no. 1 -Rakesh Kumar being owner thereof had no opportunity to make effective objection to the notification of acquisition. He further argued that the objections of the petitioners have been rejected without considering the said aspect with regard to plot no. 527. He therefore argued that either the notifications of acquisition be quashed or the matter maybe remanded for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the said aspect regarding plot no. 527. He relied on some of the portions of the following judgments. (2009) 14 SCC 281 -Mahender Pal Vs. State of Haryana; (2011) 5 SCC 553 -Radhy Shyam (dead) through Lrs. Vs. State of U.P.; (2011) 8 SCC -708 -Rajiv Sarin Vs. State of Uttarakhand; (2011) 10 SCC 714 - J and K. Housing Board Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul.
(3.) ON the other hand, the respondents have controverted the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to them, the respondents have acted legally, and the notification under section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has also been issued. There is no finding by the appellate court that the writ court did not consider the aspect of non acquisition of plot no. 527. This review is barred by constructive res judicata. Paragraph 28 of the judgment reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69 Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty has been relied.;