ORDER Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. 1. In response to a public notice issued by the second respondent corporation dated 05.11.2007, the petitioner's bid offering Rs. 21,00,00,000/- was accepted and he was allotted Plot No. 15. The total cost of land works out to Rs. 630,00,00,000/-. Undisputedly the petitioner paid two instalments of Rs. 189 crores each and together with EMD paid, the total amount of Rs. 403 crores was paid to the second respondent. However, subsequently, the correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the second respondent and ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court by W.P. No. 27133 of 2009 seeking Mandamus directing respondents to restitute/refund the amount of Rs. 403 crores paid by the petitioner together with interest at 18% per annum. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 12.03.2012 and W.A. No. 1407 of 2012, preferred by the petitioner against the said order, was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 05.03.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an SLP (Civil) No. 21543 of 2012, which was, however dismissed by the Supreme Court on 05.08.2013. The order of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience: "Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that he instructions to withdraw this special leave petition, which is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. This order shall not however prevent the petitioners from seeking such redress as may be open to it in law before the government." 2. Petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present review petition along with an application seeking condonation of delay vide WAMP. No. 1351 of 2014. By order of this Court dated 29.04.2014, the delay was condoned on payment of costs, which was complied with by the petitioner and thereafter, in this review petition, notice was ordered. Subsequently, the State of Telangana, which has come into existence after the Reorganization of the then State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded vide WAMP. No. 2129 of 2014 on 04.07.2014. Subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General, who appears along with the standing counsel for the second respondent were heard on 19.09.2014 and hearing was concluded on 05.12.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General have submitted their written submissions towards the end of December 2014 and early January 2015 respectively. 3. Subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General, who appears along with the standing counsel for the second respondent were heard on 19.09.2014 and hearing was concluded on 05.12.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General have submitted their written submissions towards the end of December 2014 and early January 2015 respectively. 3. The primary contention raised in support of this review petition is that Plot No. 15, which was allotted to the petitioner and subsequently, renumbered as Plot No. 15-A, was the subject matter of a writ petition and a writ appeal, was found to have been declared as heritage site long prior to auction. However, when the SLP was pending, the petitioner states that the second respondent offered to allot alternate Plot No. 16-A to the petitioner instead of Plot No. 15-A and in view of that, SLP was withdrawn with a liberty to seek redressal before the Government. Petitioner, however, states that subsequently it came to their: knowledge that Plot No. 15-A as well as Plot No. 16-A are declared as heritage site and precinct and rock foundations therein are required to be preserved. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have taken up further verification and came to know of Sy. No. 83/1, as having been declared as heritage site and precincts in the year 2003 itself and alleging that the said vital information was suppressed and not disclosed to any of the bidders including the petitioner, the present review petition is filed based on the non-disclosure of a new and important fact. Petitioner, therefore, contends that non-disclosure of the said material fact requires the decision of this Court in W.A. No. 1407 of 2012 to be reviewed. 4. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has elaborated the said ground extensively by placing reliance upon the reports of the Heritage Conservation Committee as well as the notifications issued by the Government declaring the list of heritage precincts in terms of Regulation 13(1) of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations 1981 and Section 59(1) of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance upon the report of the Officers Committee on the issue of development land of second respondent corporation in Sy. No. 83/1 of Rayadurg village of Ranga Reddy District wherein it is recorded with regard to Plot Nos. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance upon the report of the Officers Committee on the issue of development land of second respondent corporation in Sy. No. 83/1 of Rayadurg village of Ranga Reddy District wherein it is recorded with regard to Plot Nos. 15-A and 16-A as follows: 5. While referring to various correspondences between the petitioner and the second respondent, learned senior counsel would, further, contend that the second respondent having taken note of the Officers Committee report, referred to above, send letters to the Government requesting the Principal Secretary to examine the proposal for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner with interest. The file notings of second respondent are also relied upon, which clearly supports the recommendations made by the second respondent. Learned senior counsel would also submit that in terms of the Maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit this Court is empowered to review, rectify, revise or recall its order when new and important discovery of material fact clearly shows that the said fact was suppressed by the second respondent and if the petitioner was aware of the same, it would not have offered its bid. It is, therefore, contended that though the second respondent recommended the case of the petitioner, no decision as such was taken by the Government and thereby, compelled the petitioner to move the present review petition. 6. Since this present review petition is filed after dismissal of the SLP, by the Supreme Court, learned senior counsel supported the maintainability of the review petition by placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in KUNHAYAMMED v. STATE OF KERALA (2000) 6 SCC 359 ; GREEN VIEW TEA & INDUSTRIES v. COLLECTOR, GOLAGHAT (2002) 1 SCC 109 ; BCCI v. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB (2005) 4 SCC 741 and GANGADHARA PALO v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (2011) 4 SCC 602 . 7. Learned Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed this review petition on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits by contending that the judgment of this Court in the writ appeal had attained finality, as the SLP filed by the petitioner was withdrawn and only liberty was granted to the petitioner to enable them to approach the Government for redressal. Learned Advocate General, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to file the present review petition, since no such liberty was granted to the petitioner by the Supreme Court. Learned Advocate General contends that the review petition would not be maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in ABHISHEK MALVIYA v. ADDITIONAL WELFARE COMMISSIONER (2008) 3 SCC 108 . Learned Advocate General also placed reliance upon the Division Bench decisions of the High Court of Madras in G. IRUDAYASWAMY v. THE CORRESPONDENT AND HEAD MASTER, ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE 2011 (20 MWN (CIVIL) 391 and S.A.R. SOMASUNDARAM v. MINOR CIBIRAJ 2010 (3) MWN (CIVIL) 241. Learned Advocate General also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM v. K. SANTHAKUMARAN (1998) 7 SCC 386 and it is contended that the review petition itself is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable when the SLP against the main judgment was dismissed. 8. So far as merits of this review petition is concerned, Learned Advocate General contended that the notification of heritage site was issued by the Government as early as in 2003 vide G.O.Ms. No. 4 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 02.01.2003 and submits that the publication of the said notification is deemed to be a public notice and as such, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was not aware of the declaration of heritage precincts, as alleged. In support of the said contention, learned Advocate General placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in JAI SINGH B. SHAUHAN v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (2005) 6 SCC 262 wherein it was held that a particular scheme being notified, in the official gazette, it must be treated as a public notice and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the said scheme was held to be without substance. Learned Advocate General also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in SUGANMAL v. STATE OF M.P. AIR 1965 SC 1740 wherein it was held that a Mandamus cannot be issued solely for refund of the amount. However, that decision, in our view, is not relevant for consideration, as the said aspect was already dealt with in the judgment under review and that aspect is not subject matter of this review petition. However, that decision, in our view, is not relevant for consideration, as the said aspect was already dealt with in the judgment under review and that aspect is not subject matter of this review petition. Learned Advocate General, therefore, contended that the ground on which this review petition is filed cannot be accepted on the ground of new and important matter, which could not be known to the petitioner even after exercise of due diligence. Learned Advocate General, however, points out that the petitioner has not substantiated any of the contentions that he is prevented from carrying out constructions on the site. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was pleaded that when the subject land was notified for sale on as is where is basis and the petitioner, having accepted the said allotment, cannot be allowed to aprobate and reprobate. It is also specifically stated in paras 5 and 16 that the adjoining plots in the same survey number allotted by the second respondent to third parties have been utilized by the respective purchasers by taking up constructions. To the extent of the claim of the petitioner for refund, which is alleged to have been agreed to by the second respondent, is concerned, it is stated that the request of the petitioner was forwarded to the Government for examination but the petitioner has not been given any commitment for refund of the amount, as alleged. The letter of the second respondent dated 15.03.2014 read in the context and entirety does not amount to any commitment for refund of the amount by the second respondent. It is, further, stated in para 15 that ... Even assuming that a small part of Plot No. 15-A is a Heritage site and precinct, the same does not in any way affect the petitioners ...' 10. During the hearing, learned Advocate General placed before this Court a sketch showing the plots as well as the heritage site and according to the learned Advocate General, Plot No. 15-A, which is allotted to the petitioner is available for development in an extent of 16.66 acres as per the said sketch, as the rock formation is only in a small part of the said plot. Similarly, Plot No. 16-A admeasuring Ac. 9.07 guntas is also available for development and the rock preservation area is separately shown in the said sketch. Similarly, Plot No. 16-A admeasuring Ac. 9.07 guntas is also available for development and the rock preservation area is separately shown in the said sketch. In continuation therewith even in the written submissions, it is reiterated that if the petitioner is serious of utilization of the land for building construction, the respondent may consider compensating the land to that extent of the area affected by the rock formation to ensure that total extent of 19.19 acres is given at the adjacent and contiguity in order to put a quietus to the issue and in the interest of justice. 11. We have considered the aforesaid contentions, which give rise to the following points for determination: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the review petition is maintainable when the SLP against the judgment under review was dismissed. 2. Assuming that point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner, whether the judgment under review is required to be reviewed on the ground of disclosure of a new and important material, which, in spite of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. POINT No. 1: 12. So far as point No. 1 is concerned, the decisions of the Supreme Court in KUNHAYAMMED's case (supra); GREEN VIEW TEA'S case (supra); BCCI's case (supra) as well as GANGADHARA PALO's case (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner support the maintainability of the review petition whereas the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate General in ABHISHEK MALVIYA's case (supra) as well as ABBAI MALIGAI. PARTNERSHIP FIRM'S case (supra) clearly hold that entertaining of review after dismissal of SLP would amount to an affront of the order of the Supreme Court and such practice of entertaining review was strongly disapproved by the Supreme Court. However, after the aforesaid decision, the very same issued was reconsidered by the Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 13. In our view, there are three other decisions, which are required to be noticed viz. MEGHAMALA v. G. NARASIMHA REDDY(2000) 6 SCC 353 there the Supreme Court reviewed the case law and held in paras 25 and 26 as under: "25. 13. In our view, there are three other decisions, which are required to be noticed viz. MEGHAMALA v. G. NARASIMHA REDDY(2000) 6 SCC 353 there the Supreme Court reviewed the case law and held in paras 25 and 26 as under: "25. Thus, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that in case a litigant files a review petition before filing the special leave petition before this Court and it remains pending till the special leave petition stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered. In case it is filed subsequent to dismissal of the special leave petition, the process of filing review application amounts to abuse of process of the court. 26. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that filing of such a review application by the respondents at a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of the court and such an application is not maintainable. Thus, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition against the order of the dismissal of the review application by the Special Court and the order of the High Court to that extent is liable to be set aside." Further, the decision in ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM'S case (supra) was further followed by the Supreme Court in K. RAJAMOULI v. A.V.K.N. SWAMY (2001) 5 SCC 37 and lastly after noticing all these aforesaid decisions, in KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. v. MAHADESWARA S.S.K. LTD. (2012) 12 SCC 291 wherein the very same issue was referred for consideration by larger Bench. Thus, in our view, though the decisions in MEGHAMALA's case (supra) and ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM'S case (supra) as well as two Division Bench decisions of the Madras High Court relied upon by the learned Advocate General require us to hold point No. 1 against the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that the very same issue is pending consideration before the larger Bench before the Supreme Court, the said issue is required to await the decision of the Supreme Court. POINT No. 2: 14. We have proceeded to consider merits of this review petition on the assumption that this review petition is maintainable. The fact that Sy. No. 83 of Rayadurg (where the plots in question are located) was declared as Heritage Precinct under G.O.Ms. No. 4 dated 02.01.2003, referred to above, cannot be disputed. POINT No. 2: 14. We have proceeded to consider merits of this review petition on the assumption that this review petition is maintainable. The fact that Sy. No. 83 of Rayadurg (where the plots in question are located) was declared as Heritage Precinct under G.O.Ms. No. 4 dated 02.01.2003, referred to above, cannot be disputed. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that neither they nor the second respondent was aware of the said declaration and in that sense, it is not as if there any disclosure of a new and important matter, which could not have come to the knowledge of the petitioner by exercising due diligence. Obviously, the existing notification is a matter for the bidders to verify before offering their bid and subsequently, the contract, when concluded, as held by the Division Bench in the judgment under review, it is not open for the petitioner to attempt to resile from a concluded contract on such a ground. 15. More importantly, the Officers Committee considered the issue as to declaration of land in Sy. No. 83/1 of Rayadurg village in its meeting held on 26.09.2013. The recommendations of the Committee, already extracted above, show that so far as Plot No. 15-A is concerned, permanent rock formation beside the existing road was required to be preserved as it is of heritage importance. It is, therefore, not as if the Plot No. 15-A admeasuring 19.19 acres is declared as heritage site in entirety. We have also noted above the specific stand of the second respondent and the submissions of the learned Advocate General that only a small part of Plot No. 15-A is declared as heritage site and that the second respondent is willing to consider compensating the land to that extent of the area affected by the rock formation to ensure that total extent of 19.19 acres is given at the adjacent and contiguity in order to put a quietus to the issue and in the interest of justice. It is also noted above, during the hearing, that the learned Advocate General pointed out that major part of Plot No. 15-A is not affected by the rock formation and can be developed. It is also noted above, during the hearing, that the learned Advocate General pointed out that major part of Plot No. 15-A is not affected by the rock formation and can be developed. So far as Plot No. 16, which is also referred to as Plot No. 16-A, sought for by the petitioner, as an alternate plot, is concerned, the report of the Officers Committee states that the plot area is relatively flat surface and can be considered, as there is no heritage significance. The officers committee appointed a technical committee, which submitted its report dated 05.11.2013. The recommendations relating to Plot No. 15-A and 16-A by both the committees are similar. It is also to be appreciated that the declaration of heritage site or precincts is only with reference to rock formation and with respect to the development of rest of the land, there is no impediment, especially, when both the committees, as referred to above, have only recommended preservation of the rock formation area. 16. In this context, it is also necessary to take note of the specific averments in the counter affidavit, filed by the second respondent, which is also referred to above, that the adjacent plots in the same survey number are already being developed by the respective purchasers and several buildings have already been constructed. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, specific averments in the counter affidavit, as referred to above, are not controverted. In such circumstances, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that it is entitled to refund of the consideration paid so far on the ground of disclosure of new and important material cannot be accepted. 17. Before concluding, it is necessary to note that the petitioner had withdrawn the SLP and approached the Government and sought alternate plot No. 16-A, which was also agreed to by the respondents. That request of the petitioner for alternate plot, therefore, in our view, amounts to novation of the contract, which presupposes that earlier contract with regard to Plot No. 15-A cannot any more be questioned by the petitioner. From this point of view also, in our view, the review petition seeking to resile from the original contract relating to Plot No. 15-A is not sustainable. The review petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. From this point of view also, in our view, the review petition seeking to resile from the original contract relating to Plot No. 15-A is not sustainable. The review petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2 from compensating or proportionately adjusting the claim of the petitioner for the area in Plot No. 15-A, purportedly lost on account of rock formations, which are required to be preserved.