ORDER : 1. The present review petition is directed against the order dated 22.06.2011 passed by this Court in W.A. Nos. 639-640/2009, whereby this Court for the reasons recorded in the order had dismissed the writ appeals. 2. We have heard Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. J. Sudhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V. Padmanabha Mahle, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. R. Devdas, learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has produced the corrected copy of the order of the Apex Court. 4. It is undisputed position that the aforesaid decision of this Court was carried before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 30.04.2012 the Apex Court has observed thus: “Delay condoned. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file review petition before the High Court since many of the grounds raised before us were not seen considered by the High Court. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Deputy Commissioner’s report dated 16.4.2007 and let it be brought to the notice of the High Court. Counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that he has also deposited approximately rupees one crore before the Authorities concerned. Let this fact also be examined by the High Court. The special leave petitions are disposed of.” The aforesaid order shows that as per the observations of the Apex Court, the following aspects have permitted for filing of the review application: 1. Many grounds raised before the Apex Court in the SLP were not seen as considered by the High Court. 2. The reliance placed on the Deputy Commissioner’s report dated 16.04.2007 was not brought to the notice of the High Court. 3. The petitioners have deposited approximately Rs.1 crore before the authorities concerned. 4. The Apex Court expected the aforesaid facts to be examined by the High Court. 5. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by this Court dated 22.06.2011 in the main writ appeals deserve to be reviewed. Consequently, W.A. Nos. 639-640/2009 shall stand restored for reconsideration. 6. 4. The Apex Court expected the aforesaid facts to be examined by the High Court. 5. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by this Court dated 22.06.2011 in the main writ appeals deserve to be reviewed. Consequently, W.A. Nos. 639-640/2009 shall stand restored for reconsideration. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners made an attempt to contend that once the writ appeals are restored, all questions may be required to be reconsidered afresh including the question which may not be the ground of review, but it may have direct or indirect effect on the consideration of the other points. 7. Whereas learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent No. 4 contended that even if the writ appeals are restored, the reconsideration should be limited to only the aforesaid questions, for which the observations are made by the Apex Court and not beyond that. 8. In our view, we need not express any view at this stage about the consideration of the writ appeals but suffice it to observe that it would be open to the bench hearing the writ appeals to consider the matter in accordance with law. 9. Under the circumstances, the review petition is allowed. The main writ appeals Nos. 639-640/2009 are restored for consideration in accordance with law. As the review petition is disposed of, now the office shall place the writ appeals for hearing on merits before the appropriate bench as per the roster. 10. In view of the above order passed, I.A. No. 1/2016 filed in R.P. No. 402/2012 shall not survive for consideration and shall stand disposed of.