// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Review Petition No.98/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1326/2001 Goms Defence Colony Society Versus The State of Rajasthan and Others AND 2. S.B. Civil Review Petition No.123/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8724/2002 Officers Campus Extension Vikas Samiti Versus The State of Rajasthan and Others AND 3. S.B. Civil Review Petition No.122/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1098/2001 Hanuman Nagar Vikas Samiti Versus The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 14.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Mahendra Goyal, Counsel for non-petitioner No.2/petitioner in all the review petitions #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the non- petitioner No.2/petitioner – The commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority. All the above three review petitions have been preferred for review of the common order dated 15th April, 2008, therefore, the same are // 2 // being disposed of by this common order. The Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has preferred these review petitions for review of the order dated 15th April, 2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.8724/2002, 1098/2001 and 1326/2001. There is a delay in filing the review petitions also, therefore, applications have been filed for condonation of the delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the concessions in the impugned order was recorded at his instance, he was not aware at the relevant time that his concession is against any statutory provision or not, therefore, the said order may be reviewed. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the concession given at his instance will be made binding for other persons also, who were not party to the litigation. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the impugned order dated 15th April, 2008. It appears from the order that during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, both, agreed to the directions which have been issued by this Court in the order dated 15th April, 2008. The order has been passed on the facts and circumstances of that case as well as the // 3 // admission of the learned counsel for both the parties on the basis of the instructions of their respective parties also. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct as his concession was only in respect of present petitioners. The said concession is not applicable and cannot be made binding for other persons, who were not party to the present litigation. So far as applications for condonation of delay in filing the review petitions is concerned, I find sufficient ground for filing the review petitions with delay. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay in filing review petitions are allowed and the delay in filing the review petitions is condoned. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the review petitions so as to review the order dated 15th April, 2008. Consequently, all the three review petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Since this order decides three review petitions, a copy of it may be placed in two other review petitions. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//