1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.04/2008 Shri Ilario Agostinho Menezes, resident of Sarzora, Salcete, Goa, by his duly constituted attorney, Mrs. Virginia Rodrigues, resident of Dramapur, Salcete, Goa. ........ Petitioner. V/s. 1. State of Goa by its Chief Secretary, having Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 2. Land Acquisition Officer & Dy. Collector & SDO, Salcete, Margao, Goa. ......... Respondents. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Rakhi Chodankar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per KHANDEPARKAR, J.) Heard. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. Ms. Chodankar waives 2 notice for the respondents. 2. The records apparently disclose that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the said Act” for short) was issued on 9th June, 2006. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.2.2007. When the petition was taken up for hearing pursuant to the challenge to the notification and declaration, a statement came to be made on behalf of the State that the declaration under Section 6 would be withdrawn and would issue a fresh declaration. It is the contention on behalf of the applicant that when such a statement was made, the same was made within a period of one year and there was ample time for the Government to withdraw the declaration and issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the said Act; however, no action in that regard was taken within the prescribed period, and inspite of the clear statement having been made on behalf of the Government, the withdrawal was made only on 13.9.07 and a fresh notification was issued. These contentions, though specifically raised and argued, were neither considered nor addressed to by the Court, and therefore, according to the applicant, there is error apparent on the face of record. 3. Perusal of the order dated 21.8.2008, which was passed while disposing of Writ Petition No.605/2007, apparently discloses that it was 3 represented to the Court that a fresh notification under Section 6 of the said Act in the form of an Addendum to the original notification under Section 6 had been issued and in that context it was observed in the order dated 21.1.08 that the withdrawal of the notification, was in fact not a withdrawal of the earlier notification dated 6.2.2007. The record nowhere discloses any other ground for arriving at the said finding. 4. Apparently there is an error apparent inasmuch as that the contention that the fresh notification which was issued on 13.9.07 was issued beyond the period of one year and that after withdrawal of the earlier declaration under Section 6, no further declaration could have been issued beyond the period of one year from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4, was not addressed to or considered while disposing of the writ petition though it was specifically raised by the applicant. This being an error apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner is justified in contending that the order dated 21.1.2008 disposing of Writ Petition No.605/07 needs to be reviewed and recalled and the petition to be restored to the Board. 5. For the reasons stated above, the Order dated 21.1.08 is, hereby, reviewed and recalled and Writ Petition No.605/07 is restored to the Board and directed to be fixed for admission on Monday, 17th March, 2008. The 4 review petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm.