IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that new evidence discovered post-judgment does not justify a review unless it was part of the original record.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajib Borpujari, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 7.

2. The respondents No. 1 to 7, herein, had instituted WP (C) 3131/2016, before the writ Court, inter alia, praying for adequate compensation in respect of the plot of land of their predecessor-in-interest Late Saroj Kumari Choudhury, acquired for the purpose of building the Raj Bhawan at Kharghuli, Guwahati, in the year 1975. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the learned Single Judge, and the same was disposed of vide order, dated 11.07.2018, with the following directions:

“9. Considering the submission of the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the logical conclusion can be inferred from the various reports and the stand of the Government, that land of Late Saroj Kumari Choudhury was acquired for public purposes. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent State, more specifically, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to take up process of compensating the present petitioners at the earliest as per the law keeping in view the point in issue raised in the affidavit-in-opposition and the whole process be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with the writ petition and its annexures and affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M). This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”

3. The materials available on record reveal that in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide the order, dated 11.07.2018, in WP (C) 3131/2016; the respondent authorities had carried-out a detailed enquiry in the matter and materials having surfaced in the enquiry which had the effect of disputing the claim made by the respondents No. 1 to 7, in WP (C) 3131/2016; a Review Petition being Review Petition No. 106/2019, came to be instituted by the appellant, herein, praying for review of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide the order, dated 11.07.2018, in WP (C) 3131/2016. The grounds, on which the said Review Petition No. 106/2019, was so instituted by the appellant, herein, being relevant, is extracted herein-below:

“(iii) For that, subsequent to disposal of the Instant writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 3131 of 2016, an exhaustive enquiry has been conducted and it has been found that land measuring 22 Bighas of Dag No. 121 of patta No. 45 years grant In village Sahar Kharghuli under Ulubari Mouza, which is in possession of Raj Bhawan was mutated In the name of Sri Prafulla Ch. Baruah vide chitha order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Guwahati on 25.07.1962, the record of which has been corrected on 10.02.1963. The total area of land covered by Dag No. 121 Is 22 Bighas and the entire plot of land under Dag No. 121 is mutated in the name of Sri Prafulla Ch. Baruah, which is supported by certified copy of Sadar Jamabandi dated 03.01.2019, and as such, Late Saroj Kumari Choudhury can have no claim over the land covered by Dag No. 121. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to review the Impugned order dated 11.07.2018.

(iv) For that, regarding Dag No. 122, the available record reveals that a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 4 Kathas 15 Lessas owned by ITC was acquired and payment of compensation of Rs. 1,08,080.45 was paid to ITC Ltd. on 05.04.1979. Further, an area of 11 Bighas 0 Katha 11 Lessas from the said Dag was requisitioned for construction of Raj Bhawan, which was also owned by ITC Ltd. A total area of 15 Blghas-0 Katha-6 Lessas of land covered by Dag No. 122 of patta No. 45 years grant of village Sahar Kharghuli under Ulubarl Mouza owned by ITC Ltd. was handed over to PWD for construction of Raj Bhawan and the said land is in possession of Raj Bhawan, and no a