JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M Z Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. D D Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, being the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Commissioner to the Government of Assam in the Department of Revenue, Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia and the Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle. 2. Office note of 28.12.2017 shows that Mr. I Rafique, Mr. S A Choudhury, Mr. B Zaman and Mr. M Deka, learned counsel had appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and the office note of 26.09.2020 shows that an affidavit-in-opposition had also been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 5. But when the matter is taken up for hearing, none of the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent no. 5. In the absence of the learned counsel, we are compelled to proceed with the matter in their absence. 3. The respondent no. 5 Tarun Kumar Roy was in occupation of certain plot of land under the Margherita Revenue Circle over which he had his homestead. The review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited required the said plot of land for their operational purpose. Although it is the stand of the review petitioner that the respondent no. 5 was not the legalized owner of the land but he was in occupation of the land and also having his homestead and therefore, the authorities in the Coal India Limited deemed it appropriate that he be paid some compensation in order to persuade him to vacate the land. In the process, the review petitioner appointed the Government approved Valuer who had given an evaluation that the compensation to be paid to the respondent no. 5 would be Rs.2,12,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Twelve Thousand). The review petitioner being the authorities in the Coal India Limited accepted the said evaluation by the Government approved valuer and paid the amount to the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 being aggrieved by the said amount of compensation paid, instituted WP(C)/2795/2008. 4. WP(C)/2795/2008 was given a final consideration by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008. By the said judgment and order of 18.12.2008 it was provided that the respondent on. 5 Tarun Kumar Roy may prefer an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia claiming for any higher compensation that may be entitled. 4. WP(C)/2795/2008 was given a final consideration by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008. By the said judgment and order of 18.12.2008 it was provided that the respondent on. 5 Tarun Kumar Roy may prefer an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia claiming for any higher compensation that may be entitled. But in the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 it was also provided that in the event any such application is made by the respondent no. 5 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, the same be given its consideration only after giving due opportunity to the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited. 5. In the resultant process, the respondent no. 5 Tarun Kumar Roy approached the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for enhancement of the compensation to be paid. In the process the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia called for a report from the Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle as regards the total compensation payable to the respondent no. 5 which may include the plants, houses standing thereon and the value of the land. The Circle Officer submitted a report dated 19.01.2009 and as per the said report, the compensation was assessed to be paid Rs.9,31,594.48/-(Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four and Forty Eight Paisa). The Deputy Commissioner accepted the said report of the Circle Officer but however took note that as the respondent no. 5 Tarun Kumar Roy was not a patta holder of the land in question, therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) was deducted from the amount of Rs.9,31,594.48/-(Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four and Forty Eight Paisa) and accordingly, it was ordered that the respondent no. 5 Tarun Kumar Roy is entitled to be a compensation amounting to Rs.8,31,594.48/-(Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four and Forty Eight Paisa). As an amount of Rs.2,12,000/-was earlier paid to the respondent no. 5, therefore, the said amount was also ordered to be deducted and the balance amount to be paid to the respondent no. 5 Tarun Kumar Roy as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Tinsukia in the order dated 10.03.2009 was Rs.6,19,594.48/-(Rupees Six Lakh Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four and Forty Eight Paisa). 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2009, the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited preferred a review petition before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Tinsukia. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2009, the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited preferred a review petition before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Tinsukia. That Review Petition was given a consideration by the order dated 02.11.2010 and in course of considering the review petition, the Deputy Commissioner was pleased to call for a fresh report from the Circle Officer, Margherita Revenue Circle. Accordingly, the Circle Officer had submitted a para-wise report dated 01.07.2009 and in the para-wise report, it was stated that the assessment made by the Circle Officer was done by following due procedures of law and guidelines in determining the value of plants/trees on the basis of the Zirat value fixed by the office of the Deputy Commissioner for that given year of 1989. The Circle Officer also stated that in arriving at the valuation, he also took the assistance of the PWD (Building) and Forest departments and the report was prepared by him by following the required norms and procedures and it was not an unilateral report as was alleged by the Chief General Manager of the North Eastern Coal Fields. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate passed an order dated 02.11.2010 wherein it was opined that the surface compensation amounting to Rs.8,31,594.48/-/-(Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four and Forty Eight Paisa) was prepared as per Rule 190(VI) of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation Act, 1886. After the necessary recalculation, it was provided that instead of Rs.6,19,594.48/-(Rupees Six Lakh Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four and Forty Eight Paisa) the respondent no. 5 would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh) as the final payment of compensation. 7. Being aggrieved by the two orders dated 10.03.2009 and 02.11.2010, the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited instituted WP(C)/318/2011. WP(C)/318/2011 was given its final consideration by the order dated 27.03.2017. On the day of the hearing, as none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner therein being the authorities under the Coal India Limited, the matter was proceeded in the absence of the learned counsel. But the matter was given its consideration on merit as claimed in the writ petition. On the day of the hearing, as none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner therein being the authorities under the Coal India Limited, the matter was proceeded in the absence of the learned counsel. But the matter was given its consideration on merit as claimed in the writ petition. In the order dated 27.03.2017, a conclusion was arrived at taking note of the grounds taken in the writ petition that a disputed question of fact was raised as regards the factual evaluation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia and further the grounds that were sought to be raised in the writ petition were also not raised by the review petitioner in their review before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Tinsukia as it transpired from the order dated 02.11.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. However, even otherwise, the issues raised by the review petitioner being the Coal India Limited in WP(C)/318/2011 was also taken note of and given its consideration and upon a detailed deliberation, a view was formed that no fault could be found with the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia in accepting the report of the Circle Officer and the contention that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have accepted the evaluation made by the official valuer as claimed by the review petitioner/writ petitioner in the said writ petition was unacceptable. Accordingly, the writ petition stood dismissed requiring the review petitioner being the Coal India Limited to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh) to the respondent no. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2017 in WP(C)/318/2011, this review petition is instituted. 8. When the review petition was heard on 10.05.2022, the only ground urged upon by Mr. M Z Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner was that in the order dated 18.12.2008 in WP(C)/2795/2008, although the respondent no. 5 was given the liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for a determination of any further compensation that was claimed for, it was also provided that the Deputy Commissioner would give an opportunity to the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited in any such process that the Deputy Commissioner may initiate. It was the specific ground of the review petitioner that in the process initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, no such opportunity was given to the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited. 9. It was the specific ground of the review petitioner that in the process initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, no such opportunity was given to the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited. 9. In view of the limited ground taken by the review petitioner, we required the learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to produce the records of the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia in order to ascertain as to whether any opportunity was given to the review petitioner being the authorities under the Coal India Limited. In response thereof, the records of the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia was produced before the Court on 07.06.2022. From the records, Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia made a submission that the authorities in the Coal India Limited were informed about the date the time of the hearing of the proceeding that the Deputy Commissioner would initiate and the said information was given vide WT Message dated 06.02.2009 bearing Memo No. TRQ/93/2008 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Tinsukia which was available at running page no. 92 of the file containing the records that had been produced before the Court. As it was the stated stand of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia that the review petitioner being the authorities in the Coal India Limited were informed about the date and time of the hearing to be taken place, the next question that arises is whether the said WT message was in fact served on the authorities of the Coal India Limited. 10. In response thereof, the records have been produced today when the matter is taken up for its hearing. 11. From the records, it has been pointed out that the judgment of the Court requiring an opportunity of hearing to be given to the review petitioner being the authorities under Coal India Limited was dated 18.12.2008 and on 06.02.2009, a WT Message was sent by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Tinsukia informing the authorities in the Coal India Limited about the date and time of the hearing to take place and accordingly, on 10.02.2009, the Personnel Manager (Legal) namely, Ranjit Dutta and another Personnel Manager namely, Mr. C Momin appeared before the Deputy Commissioner on 10.02.2009 and their statements were also recorded. 12. C Momin appeared before the Deputy Commissioner on 10.02.2009 and their statements were also recorded. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual situation that as required by the order dated 18.12.2008, the authorities in the Coal India Limited were informed about the date and time of the hearing and personnel deputed for the purpose by the Coal India Limited had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and had given their statements, we have to accept that the requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorities in the Coal India Limited as provided in the judgment dated 18.12.2008 in WP(C)/2795/2008 had been duly complied with. 13. Mr. M Z Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner raises a contention that although the official of the Coal India Limited were informed and remained present in the hearing on 10.02.2009, but the authorities in the Coal India Limited had also filed a review application before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia against the order dated 10.03.2009 of the Deputy Commissioner. Although it is not an issue before the Court in this review petition, but as a contention has been raised that the said review application filed by the authorities under the Coal India Limited had not been given its consideration, Ms. D D Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia upon verification of the records states that even the said application for review had been given its consideration as per the order dated 02.11.2010. 14. As we have already concluded that the grounds taken in this review petition that an opportunity was given to the authorities in the Coal India Limited as required by the judgment dated 18.12.2008 in WP(C)/2758/2008 had not been complied with is unacceptable as the records reveal that the said opportunity in fact was given, we are of the view that the review petition requires no further consideration. Review petition stands closed in the above terms.