ORDER Mr Subramanium, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant wanted to urge certain grounds which, do not appear to us, to have been h urged before the High Court as apparent in the impugned judgment. The only ground, that appears to have been urged before the High Court as per the judgment in question, is that whether the land could be exempted under Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, which has been repealed in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal a Act, 1999. Even there has been no assertion in the special leave petition that any other contention was raised, and the High Court has failed to answer. If the Court, in considering a matter and delivering a judgment, has not considered a question, which was raised, then the remedy lies to file an application for review inasmuch as, prima facie, we are of the view that the only question, that was raised before the High Court, is the implication of b Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In the absence of any other contention being raised by the appellant, and in the absence of any affidavit in this Court, that any other contention was raised and not answered, we are not prepared to permit the appellant to raise any other contention other than that, which has been answered, and which is the I subject-matter of scrutiny. Mr Subramanium, therefore, withdraws the civil c appeal saying that he will move the Gujarat High Court by filing an application for review. We express no opinion as to whether a review could, at all, be entertained, and if so, what would be the merits of that application. The civil appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.