The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within the knowledge of the party seeking review at the time of the original order. The accuracy of government records and the presumption of accuracy under Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are crucial in determining the facts of a case.

ORDER

Kausik Chanda, J. - The review application being R.V.W. No. 32 of 2022 (The State of West Bengal and Others v. Sadhan Roy (Budhuk) and Others) seeking review of an order dated December 19, 2013, passed by a Coordinate Bench in F.M.A. No. 911 of 2012 and the Contempt Application being C.P.A.N. No. 2796 of 2014 (Shri Sadhan Roy (Budhuk) and Others v. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh and Others) which has been filed alleging violation of the said order of Coordinate Bench are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The applicants in the contempt application /respondent nos.1 to 4 in the review application/writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioners') approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 16864(W) of 2011, wherein they claimed that C.S. Plot No.540 of Mouza-Dhapamanpur in the district of 24-Parganas (South), of which they were the owners, had been acquired by the State.

3. The writ petitioners relied upon an information slip supplied by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on October 12, 2012, which provided as follows:

'Reference above, the information in respect of C.S. Plot No.540 of Mouza-Dhapamanpur, JL No.1, P.S. Bhangore, is furnished hereunder:-

The C.S. plot no.540 in full had been acquired vide Case No.LA 4/41 of 55-56 under Act-1. So far available record no report over 'award' could be furnished.

The above information is given on the basis of present available office record.'

4. The writ petitioners, further, claimed that the said land has been utilised by the State as a part of No.16 Water Tank, Netaji Subhas Bose Complex, R.B.I. Staff Quarter and 40 feet metal road at L.A. Block, Salt Lake, Sector-III.

5. It was the case of the writ petitioners that despite the said land being acquired and utilised by the State, no compensation has been paid to them being the recorded 'raiyats' of the said land. They prayed for a direction upon the Collector, 24-Parganas (South), to pay compensation to them by making a fresh award in respect of the relevant land.

6. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that though the writ petition was filed only in the year 2011, the land in question was acquired in the year 1955-1956. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no explanation regarding the delay in moving the writ petition after 55 years. The State could not produce any record regarding the award before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the view that one cannot expect the authorities to preserve all the records for all the years.

7. The said order dated November 3, 2011, was carried in an appeal by the writ petitioners, which was registered as F.M.A. No. 911 of 2012.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated December 19, 2013, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The said Coordinate Bench was of the view that a citizen, whose property has been acquired, is entitled to compensation, and the State cannot take the plea that as the records are not available it would not disburse the compensation to the persons interested. The said Bench directed the relevant Land Acquisition Collector to pass an award within a month from the date of communication of the order to him. It was, further, directed that the said Collector should immediately thereafter issue a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the persons interested.

9. Alleging violation of the said order, the writ petitioners have filed this application for contempt being C.P.A.N. No. 2796 of 2014.

10. When the said contempt application was taken up for hearing on December 6, 2021, the State was represented by its learned advocate and the matter was fixed on December 14, 2021. Thereafter the State took out this present application (R.V.W. No. 32 of 2022) for review of the said order dated December 19, 2013, passed by the Coordinate Bench. An application for stay (CAN No. 1 of 2022) w