Kondopant v. Arjuna and Ors.

In our order dated May 2, 1995 we had stated that Shri Parekh, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, had raised ground No. 5 and also produced a certified copy to show that the respondent was declared to be a surplus holder and he was in excess of the land under the Land Ceiling Act. The surplus land was assigned to· the appellants. Since counsel H for the review petitioner, viz., the respondents in the S.L.P., had reported 582 .... KONDOP ANT v. ARJUNA 583 that in spite of their contracting the party, they could not get any response A from them, we had stated that the declaration of the respondents as a surplus holder is correct and in case he was found to be within the ceiling limit, liberty was given to him to file review petition within a period of two months from today. The said fact is not disputed in the review petition. But additional grounds have now got to be raised. Therefore, that would not B. be a ground for us to review the order. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.