WPMS No. 230 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Mr. Neeraj Garg, and Mr. K.N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents. In proceedings u/s 33 and 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the authority deleted the name of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and mutated the name of the petitioner by an order dated 7th June, 1991. The respondents preferred a revision which was dismissed by an order dated 13th February, 1992. It is stated that a review application was filed by the respondents which was again rejected by an order dated 15th March, 1995. Subsequently, a second review application was filed alongwith an application u/S 5 which was also dismissed by an order dated 13th January, 2006. Against this order, the respondents filed a writ petition which was disposed of and the matter was remitted to the court below by an order dated 6th June, 2006 directing the authority to reconsider and decide the matter. Consequent to the direction of the Court, it transpires that the respondents file an amendment application to amend certain paragraphs of the review application. This application was allowed by an order dated 21st August, 2009 against which the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment application changes the entire case of the respondents and such amendment could not be allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently misconceived. It is always open to the party to take such grounds in the review application, even inconsistent grounds. At the present moment, the Court below has only allowed the amendment application to the review application. The matter on merits of the review application is still to be heard. Whether such grounds could be considered or not is upon the Court below after hearing the parties. Consequently, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 07.07.2010 Shiv