JUDGMENT : Prasanna B. Varale, J. The appellant not being a party eo nomine to the writ petition has filed this intra court appeal for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 07.12.2022 whereby the said writ petition having been favoured, the acquisition proceedings concerning the land admeasuring 2 Acres & 9 Guntas in Sy.No.75/2 of Allanahalli village have been quashed. Learned Single Judge has granted this relief to the writ petitioner who happens to be the first respondent herein, in the light of a Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.1242/2019 between Smt. Chinnamma vs. State disposed off on 01.08.2022. 2. Appellant has moved an application seeking leave of the court for prosecuting this appeal on the ground that he was not aware of the writ proceedings and the order made therein. Another application is also moved for the condonation of delay in preferring the writ appeal on the same ground. Both the applications are supported by independent affidavits. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as it is open to the appellant to file another writ petition seeking review of the order put in challenge before us in the light of the decision of Apex Court in SHIVDEO SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1963 SC 1909 wherein paragraph 8 reads as under: "The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art.226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla’ J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla’ J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J". 4. The decision in SHIVDEO SINGH supra has been reiterated by the Apex Court in S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY vs. V.NARAYANA REDDY, (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1034. That apart, in more or less, a similar fact matrix in Writ Appeal No.344/2023 (KLR-RES) between Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State, we have relegated the appellant therein to the remedy of review and therefore we cannot take a different view in the matter, no special circumstances having been shown. After all, similar cases need to be treated similarly, is a popular norm of adjudication. 5. All the above being said, we need to observe that if writ petition is filed as indicated above for review of the impugned order, the period spent in prosecuting this appeal and the period during which the appellant was not aware of the proceedings in the subject writ petition including the impugned order, the same shall be liable to be discounted while considering arguable delay & laches, if any. With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed off, keeping open all contentions of the parties.