JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 to 40, as well as Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, Senior G.A., assisted by Mr. A. Chandran, the learned Junior G.A., State of Arunachal Pradesh, respondents No. 41 to 46. The Union of India, Respondent No.47 remained unrepresented. 2. This petitioners who are seeking review/modification/clarification of the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by this Court in W.A. No.7(AP)/2014 were the respondents No.1 and 2 in the said writ appeal, which was filed by the respondents No.1 to 40 herein. The respondents No.41 to 46 herein were arrayed as respondents No. 3 to 8 in the said writ appeal. The Union of India, arrayed as respondent No.47 in this application was not a party in the said writ appeal. 3. The petitioners project that they are highly prejudiced by the impugned order, allowing the writ appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 483(AP)/2014. The main grievance of the petitioners is that this Court by accepting the report dated 02.04.2018, submitted by the Ombudsman had observed that the respondents No.1 to 40 are the actual land-owners in respect of the land affected by the Subansiri Lower Hydro Electric Project and by the further direction by this Court that in terms of the said report, the District Authority shall scrutinize the amount of compensation received earlier by the present respondents No.1 to 40 before release of the compensation amount. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the further direction that the Deputy Commissioner would hear the respondents No.1 to 40 and assess the dues and acquisition compensation in accordance with the report of the Ombudsman and compensate their entitled dues in accordance with law. 4. By referring to the various documents annexed to this application, the learned senior advocate for the petitioners submit that there are certain facts which was revealed after the judgment impugned herein was passed, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the learned advocate representing the petitioners in connection with the writ appeal. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO SETTING UP OF HYDRO POWER PROJECT AND APPOINMENT OF OMBUDSMAN AS PROJECTED BY THE PETITIONERS: 5. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO SETTING UP OF HYDRO POWER PROJECT AND APPOINMENT OF OMBUDSMAN AS PROJECTED BY THE PETITIONERS: 5. Before discussing the present case, reference to the brief facts the case as projected by the petitioners is deemed necessary. The petitioner i.e. NHPC Ltd. is constructing 2,000 MW Hydro Electric project at Kolaptukar in Arunachal Pradesh, also engulfing a part of the State of Assam, which is known as Subansiri Lower Hydro Electric Project. For the said purpose, 4030.56 Hectares (‘Ha.’ for short) of forest land was diverted by the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of India, under Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Out of the said land, 3,187.80 Ha land was in State of Arunachal Pradesh, spread over 3 (three) Districts and 942.76 Ha. land was in the State of Assam. 6. It is projected that the present dispute relates to approx. 1,225 Ha. forest land in Lower Siang District (erstwhile West Siang District). It is projected that out of this 1,225 Ha. Land, 639.50 Ha. land comprises of ‘Proposed Reserve Forest’ (PRF for short), ‘Unclassed State Forest’ (USF for short) and ‘wet rice cultivation’ and ‘jhum cultivation’ land of 77 families of Gengi and Siberite villages. It is also projected that the remaining 585 Ha. land is river-bed. Hence, the petitioner had developed and handed over 40 Ha. land to 77 projected affected families of Gengi and Siberite for their re-settlement, out of which the homestead land of the said 38 affected families were not affected due to submergence, as such, an area ad-measuring about 1185 Ha. is the subject matter for assessment of compensation, which is stated to be inclusive of 585 Ha. land of riverbed. In respect of remaining 699.65 Ha. area, which is inclusive of 585 Ha. land of riverbed, a group of 30 (thirty) individuals and 10 (ten) communities made a claim of having community and individual interest. The said 699.65 Ha. area inclusive of 585 Ha. riverbed comprises of 316 Ha. PRF and 383.65 Ha. USF. 7. land of riverbed. In respect of remaining 699.65 Ha. area, which is inclusive of 585 Ha. land of riverbed, a group of 30 (thirty) individuals and 10 (ten) communities made a claim of having community and individual interest. The said 699.65 Ha. area inclusive of 585 Ha. riverbed comprises of 316 Ha. PRF and 383.65 Ha. USF. 7. On the basis of socio economic survey conducted in 2000-2001 by the Water & Power Consultancy Limited, coupled with joint inspection involving local villagers, District Administration and NHPC and followed by public hearing at Aalo by the State Pollution Control Board on 22.08.2001, the cultivable land and not the homestead land of 38 families of Gengi and Siberite villages of Gengi Circle were found to be affected due to submergence after verification, as such, these families had voluntarily opted to shift to new locations. However, as these cultivable land was under PRF and USF, it is projected that these families along with other communities and clans of Hapoli, Banderdewa and Daporijo Forest Division were entitled to compensation only for loss of their community interest over the land in question and not for any loss of individual interest. Nonetheless, as these families had voluntarily opted to shift from their area and on account of their cultivation coming under submergence which had a direct bearing on their livelihood, the NHPC took a liberal and magnanimous view and decided to cover these families by entering into Rehabilitation and Resettlement Agreement dated 05.09.2001 with the respective Village Headmen of the Gengi and Siberite villages representing project affected families (PFA for short) for allotting 40 Ha. land for settlement of these families, for providing them with various incentives including special compensation package. Subsequently, joint aerial survey was conducted on 09.10.2002 by a team consisting of Deputy Commissioner, Asstt. Conservator of Forest, Along Forest Division and Senior Representatives of NHPC and the said Asstt. Conservator of Forest had submitted his report dated 06.11.2002 that except for some portion of cultivable land of Gengi and Siberite villages, there was no damage to any other human or nature or forest wealth. 8. Thereafter, demand for re-verification was raised from time to time, which led to convening of coordination meeting on 03.09.2007 wherein a resolution was taken to constitute a Board to finalize the list of project affected families of Gengi and Siberite villages after public hearing. 8. Thereafter, demand for re-verification was raised from time to time, which led to convening of coordination meeting on 03.09.2007 wherein a resolution was taken to constitute a Board to finalize the list of project affected families of Gengi and Siberite villages after public hearing. The Board finalized the list of 77 affected families (38 families in Gengi and 39 families in Siberite villages) and the said list was forwarded by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner West Siang District, Aalo (now Lower Siang District) vide letter dated 03.10.2007 to the General Manager, Subansiri Lower Hydro Electric Project, NHPC. The coordination meeting in its meeting dated 12.12.2007 decided that the list was final with cutoff date of 03.10.2007 and no claim for seeking revision in the number of project affected families shall be entertained, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo. Thereafter, pursuant to direction from the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, a Board was constituted for final assessment of value of immovable properties like trees, land, etc., of 77 project affected families of Gengi and Siberite villages. The Board recommended compensation of Rs.84,11,97,755/- out of which an amount of Rs.51.29 Crore was for 77 project affected families and the balance Rs.32.82 Crore was in respect of 29 other individuals and other clans and communities of adjoining villages having community/individual interest in 640 Ha. of submerged area. The Board submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo vide letter dated 06.02.2008 and the said authority forwarded the said report to NHPC for payment vide letter dated 29.02.2008. 9. The petitioners had represented that the 29 individuals and 10 communities of adjoining areas were only entitled to “rights and privileges” in terms of Arunachal Pradesh Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008 which initially was assessed at Rs.17.46 Crore. On submitting affidavit/undertaking expressing their satisfaction, the petitioners disbursed Rs.51.29 Crore for 77 families of Gengi and Siberite villages and Rs.17.46 Crore for the 29 individuals and 10 communities of adjoining areas. After about a year, the group of the 29 individuals and 10 communities of adjoining areas led by Kiri Dini Bogum came with a fresh claim and consequently filed W.P.(C) 65(AP)/2011 seeking compensation as per Loss Assessment Report and upon contest, the said writ petition was withdrawn by order dated 20.12.2011 with liberty to approach afresh. After about a year, the group of the 29 individuals and 10 communities of adjoining areas led by Kiri Dini Bogum came with a fresh claim and consequently filed W.P.(C) 65(AP)/2011 seeking compensation as per Loss Assessment Report and upon contest, the said writ petition was withdrawn by order dated 20.12.2011 with liberty to approach afresh. Thereafter on 21.12.2011, the said parties again filed W.P.(C) No. 483/11 for similar relief as in W.P.(C) No. 65(AP)/2011. This Court, by order dated 20.11.2014, directed appointment of an Ombudsman in terms of Arunachal Pradesh Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008. The writ petitioners challenged the said order by filing W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014 and this Court allowed impleading of 39 parties as appellants and directed appointment of Ombudsman on terms as contained in the order dated 13.09.2017. REASONS FOR FILING THIS REVIEW: 10. It is projected that W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014 came up before this Court on 03.04.2018, when the Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh had produced a copy of the Ombudsman’s report dated 02.04.2018 and this Court had accepted the said report. The said order of acceptance of the Ombudsman’s Report by the order dated 03.04.2018 is being assailed in this review petition. 11. In order to justify the challenge to the report of the Ombudsman, the petitioner has relied on the additional affidavit filed on 05.09.2018 in support of this present review petition. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners herein has referred to the pleadings as well as documents on record and has submitted by judgment and order dated 20.11.2014, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 483(AP)/2011, the State respondents were directed to create and appoint an Ombudsman in terms of the rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the State Government for redressal of the grievances of the petitioners in the said writ petition, who were affected by non-payment of full compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.1 had filed a writ appeal, being WA 7(AP)/2014 and in course of hearing of the said appeal, this Court by order dated 13.09.2017, notwithstanding issuance of the notice in the said writ appeal, issued a direction for appointment of an appropriate person to discharge the functions of ombudsman as directed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2014 within a period of two months with a further direction that upon appointment, the Ombudsman shall undertake the process to identify the actual land owners who had not been paid a full compensation as assessed by the Loss Assessment Committee, 2010 and the exercise to identify the actual land owners be completed within a period of three months thereafter. It was also directed that at the end of five months the Ombudsman shall file a report before this Court indicating the entire list of the actual land owners who are entitled but have not received the full compensation as yet as per the Loss Assessment Committee, 2010. It is submitted that notwithstanding that the Division Bench of this Court had issued a direction for appointment of Ombudsman, but the same was only reiteration or the direction contain in judgment dated 20.11.2014. It is submitted that pursuant to the above referred orders, the State Govt. had appointed an Ombudsman, who had conducted the enquiry and had submitted his report. It is submitted that the petitioners have various reasons to question the correctness of the report by the Ombudsman. However, as this Court had accepted the report of the Ombudsman by order dated 03.04.2018, the petitioners have been deprived of a reasonable opportunity to challenge the said Ombudsman’s report. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit by referring to the order dated 15.12.2017, passed by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Land Management, that by the said order, Shri G.M. Mina, IAS, Secretary (Law) was appointment as Ombudsman, but it would be apparent from the said order that not only a notice thereof was sent to the petitioners, but a copy of the said order was also sent to the respondent No.1. It is submitted that in the entire exercise of hearing, the Ombudsman did not issue any notice to the petitioners and, as such, the enquiry and/or hearing was done by the Ombudsman behind the back of the petitioners. It is submitted that in the entire exercise of hearing, the Ombudsman did not issue any notice to the petitioners and, as such, the enquiry and/or hearing was done by the Ombudsman behind the back of the petitioners. It is also submitted that almost all the communication by the Government and the Ombudsman in connection with the proceedings before the Ombudsman, all letters were marked to the respondent No.1 but none of those communications were sent to the petitioners. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners had further clarified that some of the communications were marked to the Nodal Officer, but the said Nodal Officer is an officer of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh assigned to interact with the petitioners, but he is not the Officer of the petitioners. In this context, it is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 16.08.2017 had categorically directed that the Ombudsman to give opportunity of hearing to all persons, but such opportunity was not granted to the petitioners. It is also submitted that objection was not invited from the petitioners by the Ombudsman. 14. In summing up the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that the report of the Ombudsman was dated 02.04.2018 and no copy thereof was served in advance to the petitioners and when the writ appeal was taken up by this Court on 03.04.2018, this Court had recorded that the report of the Ombudsman was placed on record and this Court had accepted the said report of the Ombudsman without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard on the said report. Therefore, it is submitted that while accepting the report this Court is presumed to have erroneously assumed (i) that the NHPC participated in the proceeding of the Ombudsman and was duly heard at the time of preparation of the report of the Ombudsman; (ii) that the NHPC was not aggrieved by the report, and it is submitted that perhaps due to such erroneous assumption, this Court had not granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the said Ombudsman’s report before accepting the same, which according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners amounted to exparte acceptance of the said Ombudsman’s report by this Court. 15. By referring to the case of (i) Food Corporation of India Vs. SEIL Ltd and Ors. 15. By referring to the case of (i) Food Corporation of India Vs. SEIL Ltd and Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 440 and (ii) Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (M/s.) and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 5 GLJ 410: (2013) 5 GLR 499, it is submitted that it is open to the court to acknowledge the mistake and recall the order for deciding the matter of acceptance of the Ombudsman’ report on merit. It is also submitted that the judgment of this Court had rendered in the case of Meghalaya Steels (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., (2015) 17 SCC 647. It is submitted that a similar ratio was laid down in the case of A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 . By referring to the case of Shivdeo Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909 , Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 and State of Punjab Vs. Surendra Mohlot, (2014) 14 SCC 77 , the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners had addressed this Court on the scope of the power of review. STAND OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 40: 16. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 40 has submitted that in order to exercise the power of review, there has to be an error apparent on the face of record, but in the present case in hand, no case of any error apparent or mistake on the face of record is made out. It is submitted that the counsel for respondents had produced the said Ombudsman’s report dated 02.04.2018, which was accepted by this Court as no objection was raised. Hence, it is submitted that this review petition is in fact an appeal in disguise. 17. It is submitted that the counsel for respondents had produced the said Ombudsman’s report dated 02.04.2018, which was accepted by this Court as no objection was raised. Hence, it is submitted that this review petition is in fact an appeal in disguise. 17. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.04.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali and the process of the assessment of entitlement of compensation to the indentified land owners was completed which is reflected in the order No. BC/LSD/NHPC-01/2018 dated 02.05.2018, wherein the authorities of NHPC had participated and it has been duly clarified in paragraph 74 of the said order that no re-assessment was carried out and, it is submitted that the present review petition is merely a ploy to prolong the litigation and to deprive the respondents No. 1 to 40 of their legitimate dues for loss of their individual and community rights over the land in question. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the private respondents No. 1 to 40 has placed reliance on the case of Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2018 SC 3220 , A.C. Muthiah Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. and Ors., 1997 STPL A 509 Madras: 1997 (3) CTC 134 and it is submitted that the power of review is very limited and narrow and the same cannot be equated in their ambit and scope as that of an appeal or for re-hearing of the same matter again, merely because no objection was made to the said report while this Court had accepted the said report. STAND OF THE STATE RESPONDENTS NO.41 TO 46: 18. Mr. Arun Chandran, learned Junior Govt. Advocate appearing for State respondent No. 41 to 46 has submitted in support of the report of the Ombudsman. POINT FOR DETERMINATION: 19. Whether the petitioners have been able to make out a case for review of the order dated 03.04.2018 in W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014? DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: 20. Mr. Arun Chandran, learned Junior Govt. Advocate appearing for State respondent No. 41 to 46 has submitted in support of the report of the Ombudsman. POINT FOR DETERMINATION: 19. Whether the petitioners have been able to make out a case for review of the order dated 03.04.2018 in W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014? DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: 20. Having heard the all sides, on a re-visit of the order dated 03.04.2018, it can be culled out that the said report of the Ombudsman dated 02.04.2018 was placed before this Court for the first time in course of hearing on 03.04.2018 and the same was accepted by this Court and in this regard it is a fact that none of the parties specifically the petitioners herein were heard on the said report. The following documents appended to this review application, viz., notice dated 09.03.2018 (page 329), notice dated 09.03.2018 (page 330, 331) are testimonies to the fact that there is nothing in the said document to show that notices of the proceedings of the Ombudsman was marked and served upon the petitioners. 21. By the order dated 13.09.2017, this Court had directed the Ombudsman to carry out the assigned duty by giving an opportunity of hearing to all persons. It does not appear from the tone and tenor of the said order that it was ever envisaged that the NHPC, who would bear the financial liability in respect of the affected persons would be kept out of hearing by the Ombudsman. Therefore, this Court is inclined to admit that while accepting the Ombudsman’s report dated 02.04.2018, this Court had presumed that the petitioners had participated in the proceedings before the Ombudsman and that the petitioners had accepted the said report, resulting in the acceptance of the said report by this Court. 22. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the acceptance of the Ombudsman’s report by this Court stands vitiated by two counts. Firstly, it was an error on part of this Court to accept the Ombudsman’s report without giving a reasonable and/or fair opportunity to the petitioners to address this Court on the said report before accepting it. Hence, the acceptance of the Ombudsman’s Report was without hearing the parties on the said report. Firstly, it was an error on part of this Court to accept the Ombudsman’s report without giving a reasonable and/or fair opportunity to the petitioners to address this Court on the said report before accepting it. Hence, the acceptance of the Ombudsman’s Report was without hearing the parties on the said report. Secondly, this Court had erroneously presumed that the petitioners had participated in the proceeding before the Ombudsman and that as no challenge was made against the same, the petitioners had no objection to the said report. This Court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned senior advocate for the petitioners that the existence of the Report by the Ombudsman, which was accepted by this Court had come to the notice of the petitioners only after passing of the order dated 03.04.2018, passed by this Court in W.A. No. 7(AP)/2014. 23. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote para-55 of the case of A.R. Antulay (supra) and para-25 of the case of Food Corporation of India (supra). a. A.R. Antulay (supra): “55. Shri Jethmalani urged that the directions given on 16.02.1984, were not per incuriam. We are unable to accept this submission. It was manifest to the Bench that exclusive jurisdiction created under Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act read with Section 6 of the said Act, when brought to the notice of this Court, precluded the exercise of the power under Section 407 of the Code. There was no argument, no submission and no decision on this aspect at all. There was no prayer in the appeal which was pending before this Court for such directions. Furthermore, in giving such directions, this Court did not advert to or consider the effect of Anwar Ali Sarkar case which was a binding precedent. A mistake on the part of the court shall not cause prejudice to anyone. He further added that the primary duty of every court is to adjudicate the cases arising between the parties. According to him, it is certainly open to a larger Bench to take a view different from that taken by the earlier Bench, if it was manifestly erroneous and he urged that the trial of corrupt Chief Minister before a High Court, instead of a judge designated by the State Government was not injurious to public interest that it should be overruled or set aside. He invited to consider two questions: (1) does the impugned order promote justice ? (2) is it technically valid? After considering these two questions, we are clearly of the opinion that the answer to both these questions is in the negative. No prejudice need be proved for enforcing the fundamental rights. Violation of a fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. So also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity. Four valuable rights, it appears to us, of the appellant have been taken away by the impugned directions. b. Food Corporation of India (supra): 25. We do not, thus, find any substance in the contention of Mr. Sharan that while exercising its review jurisdiction, no interest on the principal sum could have been directed to be granted by the High Court. A writ court exercises its power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself. While exercising the said jurisdiction, it not only acts as a court of law but also as a court of equity. A clear error or omission on the part of the court to consider a justifiable claim on its part would be subject to review; amongst others on the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit) an act of the court shall prejudice none). We appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge accepted his mistake and granted relief to the respondents.” 24. In view of the discussions above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for review of the order impugned herein. The point of determination is answered accordingly. 25. Hence, upon acknowledging the mistake committed by this Court in the matter of acceptance of the Ombudsman’s Report dated 02.04.2018 by the order dated 03.04.2018, this Court is inclined to recall the impugned order dated 03.04.2018 passed by this Court in WA No. 7(AP)/2014. ORDER: 26. This review application stands allowed. Consequently, the order dated 03.04.2018 passed by this Court in WA 7(AP)/2014, whereby the Ombudsman’s Report dated 02.04.2018 was accepted, also stands recalled and the proceedings of the said WA 7(A)/2014 stands restored to file for further hearing. 27. There shall be no order as to costs.