Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
Civil Review No. 257 of 2019 in First Appeal No.803 of 1994
(22.6.2022)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
(Previously Union of India)
Through the Chief General
Manager, Bihar Circle, Patna ... Petitioner
vs.
Nita Sharan Sinha & Ors. ... Opp. Parties
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 114 – Review – Scope and ambit – Power of review may be exercised on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made and it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on face of record is found but it may not be exercised on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits, same would be domain of Court of appeal, power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable Appellate Court to correct errors committed by subordinate Court – While considering application for review Court must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision – Subsequent event or development cannot be taken into account for review of original order/decision – Review proceeding cannot bee quated with original hearing of case and a party is not entitled to seek review for the purpose of re-hearing and fresh decision of case. (Para 23)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 114 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Review petitioner has failed to establish error or mistake apparent on face of record and is merely seeking review of judgment on the basis of subsequent filing of restoration as well as writ petition arising out of First Appeal – Review application dismissed – Award was passed by Reference Court in year 1994 and despite lapse of about 28 years, respondents/Opposite parties are waiting for final settlement – Principal amount has already been paid to respondents/Opposite Parties by review petitioner and only statutory interest awarded by court is to be paid for which Execution Case is pending – Judgment creditors/opposite parties have waited for about27-28 years in order to get full benefits/fruits of award/litigation and judgment debtor, somehow, by filing review and or Miscellaneous applications delayed payment of compensation/interest to judgment creditors under the award – Executing Court directed to finally decide and dispose Execution Case within a period of three months. (Paras 24 and 25)
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—The instant review application has been preferred for review of the judgment/order dated 11.05.2017 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo (as His Lordship then was) in First Appeal No. 803 of 1994 by appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short ‘BSNL’), previously ‘Union of India’. By the aforesaid judgment the First Appeal No. 803 of 1994 filed by the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 5 herein was dismissed.
2. An Interlocutory Application bearing no. 02/2019 has been filed for condonation of delay of 02 years, 01 month and 19 days in filing of the review application. A notice on the Interlocutory Application was issued by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2019 and in pursuance thereof, opposite parties/respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit on the point of limitation as well as on merit.
3. For the reasons stated in the condonation application and taking into consideration impersonal entity of the petitioner/corporation and the bureaucratic nature of its functioning and the fact that at several stages the officers take their own time to reach a decision, the delay in filing the present review application is, hereby, condoned.
4. The brief facts involved in this review application is, that for the purpose of construction of buildings and staff quarters for Telephone Exchange, Microwave Project at Nawada, the lands of land-holders including Respondents/Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4 were acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No. 02 of 1986-87. A Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 14.04.1986 and after following the statutory procedure the award was prepared. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act giving rise to L.A. Case Nos. 19/1994, 20/1994 and 21/1994 for enhancement of compensation claiming the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per decimal. The present case arises out of L.A. Case No. 21/1994.
5. All the three above mentioned L.A. Cases were tried together and one set of evidence regarding market value of the land acquired was adduced by both the parties. On 19.07.1994, compensation amount was determined at the rate of Rs. 3,947/- per decimal being the value of the land with statutory interest by the common judgment and award passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada inter alia taking into consideration sale statement regarding land sold under 376 registered sale deeds.
6. The State of Bihar and BSNL aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed by the reference court preferred three First Appeals being First Appeal No. 803/1994 arising out of L.A. Case No. 21/1994, First Appeal No. 804/1994 arising out of L.A. Case No. 20/1994 and First Appeal No. 805/1994 arising out of L.A. Case No. 19/1994.
7. The First Appeal No. 804/1994 arising out of common judgment and award passed by reference court was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2010. Civil Review application No. 266/2010 was filed by the petitioner/BSNL which got dismissed for default on 18.12.2014. However, on 20.06.2019 after a lapse of about four years and six months, a restoration application bearing MJC No. 2308/2019 has been filed for restoration of Civil Review No. 266/2010.
8. First Appeal No. 805/1994 arising out of common judgment and award was disposed of by the Lok Adalat taking into consideration the Notification of Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar vide Letter No. 1544 dated 03.12.2014 and the compromise arrived at between the parties. On 20.06.2019, a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 12965/2019 was filed against the order of the Lok Adalat and a Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.07.2019 has stayed the award dated 06.12.2014 passed by Lok Adalat held at Patna High Court.
9. Learned counsel for the review petitioner during course of the argument submits that First Appeal No. 804/1994 arising out of L.A. Case No. 20/1994
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot involve re-evaluation of evidence or serve as an appeal.
Review jurisdiction is strictly limited, focusing on evident errors in prior judgments, and cannot retry matters already resolved or pursue arguments previously rejected.
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
