JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - Application for review is sought on the ground that in relation to the property acquired, the court has not taken note of a compensation determined for an adjacent property which was acquired for bus stand where this court had assessed a compensation of Rs.7,26,000/- per acre. This court has awarded compensation in the instant case only at Rs.2,19,000/-. The learned counsel would point out that for the other case for acquisition for bus stand, the court has relied on a sale deed dated 27.12.1988 which was exhibited as P3 that contained reference to sale of 1 marla of land for Rs.25,000/-. This sale deed was filed as an additional evidence as Annexure-C in appeal and the court has not however considered the same. 2. It appears that the applicant had filed a special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in the instant case but had the case withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before this court. The review is sought on the consideration of documents which were not brought to the attention of the court. I must observe that the property which was acquired for establishing a bus stand for where this court has determined a higher compensation was a subject of notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act issued on 27.03.1989. The reliance on the sale deed was just before the date of acquisition and hence offered a reliable data as a pre-notification transaction. However, in the present case, the subject of acquisition was notified under Section 4(1) on 12.02.1988 which means even a reference to a sale deed (P3) sought to be relied on as Annexure-C cannot be appropriately made as a post-notification sale. A transaction of a sale which was relevant for an acquisition for a bus stand cannot immediately be taken as relevant by this court only by the fact of its proximity, without minding the issue of when the notification was made. Market values of properties have significant relevance about the time when a notification is made and when the compensation is determined. If the petitioner had not filed Annexure-C at the trial court, it could not be treated as merely an accidental lapse. I would even suspect that it was deliberate, knowing the proposition of law and the judicial practice not to admit post-notification sales as matter of any relevance. If the petitioner had not filed Annexure-C at the trial court, it could not be treated as merely an accidental lapse. I would even suspect that it was deliberate, knowing the proposition of law and the judicial practice not to admit post-notification sales as matter of any relevance. What could therefore not obtain relevance at the trial cannot be introduced in appeal as relevant by the only fact that acquisition of some other property through yet another notification which was made subsequent to that sale deed has yielded to a higher compensation. 3. Parameters that are statutorily laid down under Order 47 CPC for review would admit of two circumstances: (i) an error apparent on the face of record; (ii) production of evidence which in spite of due diligence, a party did not know existed for its reliance. The first situation does not admittedly exist. The second situation, I have explained could not have existed. There is no scope for an interference. The application for review is dismissed. In passing the order, I have taken the assistance of the counsel for the respondent, who was incidentally present in court. Delay application is dismissed for the same reasons that the review application itself is found to be not tenable. ---------0.B.S.0------------