JUDGMENT This is a review petition against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Revision No. 22 of 1991, on 6.2.1991, by which the revision has been disposed of with certain directions. Since the order passed by the learned single Judge is a short one, it is reproduced hereunder:- "6.2.1991 ORDER IN ORDER SHEET Shri G.C. Jain on behalf of the applicant and Shri Umesh Trivedi on behalf of the caveator heard. The learned counsel contends that twice compensation and solatium were paid by the authorities, but the same is not clear from the order impugned. However, if that be so, this is a fit case for the State to report the matter to the State Vigilance Cell for initiating proceedings against the officers concerned and other persons involved in the conspiracy. With this direction; this revision is dismissed summarily. The stay application is also rejected." Sd- B.M. Lal JUDGE. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the revision has been disposed of with the above observations apparently under a mistake. The learned counsel explains that the revision arose out of an order passed in execution proceedings of an award under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The amount of compensation awarded by the L.A.O. had been enhanced on a reference to the District Judge. The Non-applicants/land owners thereafter made an application for execution of the said award stating that amount of compensation at the enhanced rate awarded by the District Judge was not fully paid. The State objected to the execution proceedings stating that the award is enhanced by the District Judge was fully satisfied and nothing remained to be paid under the award. The objection raised by the State having been over- ruled and the execution process having been issued, the applicant/State had preferred Civil Revision No. 22/91. The learned counsel submits that it was not a case of the State that any compensation amount was doubly paid to the land owners. There was, therefore, no occasion or justification to direct the State Government to report the matter to the Vigilence Cell for initiating proceedings against the concerned officers. We find from the record of the case that the submission made by the learned counsel for the State is perfectly justified. There appears to be an apparent mistake in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.2.1991. Consequently the review application is allowed. We find from the record of the case that the submission made by the learned counsel for the State is perfectly justified. There appears to be an apparent mistake in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.2.1991. Consequently the review application is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.2.1992, passed in Civil Revision No. 22 of 1991 is hereby set aside. It is directed that the Civil Revision No. 22 of 1991 be restored to file and be listed for admission before the appropriate Bench.