MUSAMIYA IMAM HAIDERBUX RAZVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court on 26th June 1990 in Special Civil Application No. 165 of 1980 (the earlier petition for convenience) is sought to be reviewed by means of this application at the instance of the original petitioner. Thereby the learned Single Judge of this court directed the Deputy Collector at Nadiad (Respondent No. 2 therein) to decide the application made by the present applicant for compensation in November 1971 under sec. 10(1) of the Gujarat Devasthan Inam Abolition Act, 1969 ('the Devasthan Act' for brief).

(2.) It is not in dispute that at the time the aforesaid decision was rendered the application for compensation made by the present applicant under sec. 10(1) of the Devasthan Act had come to be decided and the decision therein was challenged before this court in Special Civil Application No. 669 of 1981 (the subsequent petition for convenience). In fact, the subsequent petition was ordered to be heard with the earlier petition. For some inexplicable and mysterious reasons both petitions were not placed together on board for final hearing despite the order in the subsequent petition to be heard along with the earlier petition. It appears that, when the earlier petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is stated to have lost sight of the fact of the subsequent petition and the decision by the Deputy Collector at Nadiad in the application for compensation under sec. 10(1) of the Devasthan Act. This omission on the part of the learned advocate for the petitioner at the relevant time resulted in giving a direction by this court in the earlier petition to the Deputy Collector at Nadiad for deciding the application for compensation under sec. 10(1) of the Devasthan Act. That direction could be said to be an exercise in futility in view of the fact that the decision of the Deputy Collector on the application in question was already made and it was under challenge in the subsequent petition. In that view of the matter, this application has been made for review of the decision of this court in the earlier petition rendered by another learned Single Judge of this court on 26th June 1990.

(3.) In this connection a reference deserves to be made to the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Devaraju Pillai vs. Sellayya Pillai, 1987 AIR(SC) 1160. In that case one second appeal was decided by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court. Its review was sought by the losing party. By that time the learned single Judge deciding the second appeal had already retired and the review application was placed for hearing before another learned single Judge of that High Court. The learned successor single Judge accepted the review application and after re-hearing the second appeal afresh came to exactly the contrary conclusion. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the losing party. In that context it has been held that the appropriate remedy for challenging the judgement in the second appeal was an appeal and not a review.