NTPCL Vs. Haria alias Hari Ram and Anr. CMP(M) No.742 of 2024 and CMP No.9062 of 2024 in Civil Revision No.155 of 2023 30.04.2025 Present: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, for applicant/respondent No.1. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for non-applicant/respondent No.2- State. CMP(M) No.742 of 2024 This application is allowed by condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside of ex parte order dated 13.03.2024 and ex parte judgment dated 22.04.2024. The application stands disposed of. CMP No. 9062 of 2024 By way of this application, the applicant/ respondent No.1 has prayed that the judgment passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.155 of 2023, titled as National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Versus Haria alias Hari Ram, decided on 22.04.2024, be re-called as there is an error apparent on the face of the same. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while deciding the revision petition, this Court held that in the absence of there being any reference preferred by the petitioner against the Award passed by learned Land Acquis ition Officer, the order that was passed by learned Executing Court was bad in law. However, he submitted that these findings are incorrect because the revision petitioner had preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel has also taken the Court to the reference petition which is placed on record by way of CMP No.23150 of 2025. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the non-applicant has submitted that in terms of the Award that was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it was specifically ordered that the amount qua the land in dispute be not paid to the parties as there was a dispute over apportionment and the matter was referred to learned District Judge for adjudication on the issue of apportionment. He, accordingly, submitted that in the light of this development, there is no infirmity in the order passed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that there indeed is an error apparent on the face of record, because the adjudication in the civil revision was on the wrong premise that the revision petitioner did not prefer any reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, in the light of the fact that there indeed is an error apparent on the face of the record, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case this application is allowed and order dated 22.04.2024 is recalled and the civil revision is ordered to be restored to its original number to be heard afresh. Ordered accordingly. This revision petition succeeds. The judgment passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.155 of 2023 is recalled. The Civil Revision is ordered to be restored to its original number. Registry is directed to place the same for fresh hearing before the appropriate Bench at the pleasure of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 30, 2025 (Rishi)