IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 10 OF 2008 IN MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2008 RODU NARAINA NAIQUE GAONKAR AND 7 ORS., ... Applicants Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 26 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. Shirodkar Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.13 & 14 Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 21st October, 2008 P.C. In the present review petition, the Applicants are original respondents No. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21. This review petition has been filed, seeking review of an order passed by this Court on 31.3.2008, allowing an application filed by the original Petitioners. The application was purported to have been filed with a view to seek clarification of the earlier order dated 18th December, 2007 which disposed off the writ petition. The only ground on which the order dated 31.3.08 has been challenged is that the said order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the present review petitioners. 2. It is stated in the application that the order dated 31.3.08 came to be passed without notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the review petitioners, which fact has not been disputed and the record as well reveals that the review petitioners were not heard while passing the order dated 31.3.08. The order dated 31.3.08 has been passed on a no objection given by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. According to the learned Counsel for the review petitioners, the order dated 31.3.08 enlarges the scope of the claim made by the original petitioners/respondents No.1 to 12 in this application. 3. Perusal of the order dated 18.12.2007 which disposed off the writ petition, clearly notices the fact that the original petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late Manguesh Naik Gaonkar and thus, this Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the claim of the original petitioners afresh under Section 19(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, based on the assertion of the petitioners that they are heirs of Manguesh Bhiku Naik Gaonkar. The application moved by the original petitioners seeking clarification, goes to enlarge the scope of their claim by contending that they are the heirs of late Deu Dipol Naik Gaonkar and Bombo Fondu Naik Gaonkar, besides claiming that some of the petitioners are heirs of late Mangesh Naik Gaonkar. 4. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the review petitioners, the said clarification could not have been granted by the impugned order dated 31.3.08 without affording an opportunity of hearing as the same adversely affects the civil rights of the review petitioners. The submission is well merited. 5. The Counsel for respondents No.1 to 12 herein (original petitioners) had put in appearance in this civil application for review on 22.4.08 and had waived service. Thereafter, he has chosen to remain absent. Perusal of the order dated 29.9.08 reveals that it was mentioned that the Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 12 was not well and hence, an adjournment was sought. Strangely enough when the matter was listed on 15.10.08, yet again he remained absent. The Counsel for the review petitioners had also intimated the Counsel for the original petitioners. Despite such an intimation he did not remain present. With a view to afford one more chance, the matter was adjourned and came to be listed today. Today as well, the Counsel for respondents No.1 to 12 herein (original petitioners) is absent. In this view of the matter, we are left with no other course open, except to hear the learned Counsel for the review petitioners and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 6. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.13 and 14 does not dispute the fact that the clarificatory order dated 31.3.08 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the review petitioners. If this be so, then the impugned order dated 31.3.08 deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, allowing the review petition, the order dated 31.3.08 is quashed and set aside. Civil Application (Review) No.10/2008 is allowed to the above extent and disposed off. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.