Review petitions must be based on new evidence or errors apparent on the record, not simply rearguments of previous claims.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

This review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is preferred seeking review of a Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2025 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4705/2013.

2. The petitioners had instituted the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4705/2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking inter alia a direction to declare that the demolition exercise carried out in the business premises of the petitioner/review petitioner no. 1 firm was illegal and unauthorized. The petitioners had also sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay adequate compensation to the petitioners to the extent of Rupees Two Crores for the alleged arbitrary and unauthorized action of the respondent authorities towards demolition of the petitioner/review petitioner no. 1 firm’s business premises. A direction was also sought for to register a case against the respondents, named as accused, in a First Information Report [FIR] lodged by the petitioner/review petitioner no. 2 before the respondent no. 7.

3. After consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings, the writ petition was disposed of by the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2025.

4. In the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2025, a finding was recorded to the effect that the act of demolition of the coke manufacturing unit installed at the subject-plot, carried out on 26.07.2013, was without following due procedure and was in violation of the principle of natural justice as no prior opportunity was afforded to the petitioners prior to 26.07.2013. It has been further recorded that the liability, however, cannot be affixed specifically on any of the respondent authorities in the District Administration, Tinsukia and M/s Coal India Limited, arraigned as party-respondents in the writ petition, as those respondents had taken stands which were at variance to each other, shifting the liability of demolition from them. It was further observed that no direction could be made for making payment of any amount as losses suffered by the petitioners, for the reasons recorded. In the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2025, it was observed that from the materials on record, it had emerged that on 26.07.2013, no exercise for eviction of the petitioners from the subject-plot was carried out.

5. The subject-plot is a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 4 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 160 & Periodic Patta no. 2 [new], situate at Village – Ledo Tikok, No. 2 NLR, Mouza – Makum, Sub-Division – Margherita, District – Tinsukia, Assam. The petitioners had claimed that a coke manufacturing unit was installed on the subject-plot by the petitioners and a demolition drive carried out on 26.07.2013 by the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited with the assistance of the respondent authorities in the District Administration, Tinsukia.

6. In the present review petition, the review petitioners have stated that the petitioners’ business premises situated within the subject-plot was unauthorizedly demolished by the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 13, who are authorities in M/s Coal India Limited. It has been asserted that on 09.07.2013, a Meeting was held at Dehing Guests House, Margherita and the said Meeting was presided over by the Minister of Power, Industries and Commerce, Assam. In that Meeting, it was proposed and decided to carry out the demolition exercise by the respondent authorities in M/s Coal India Limited. After a request of the respondent no. 8, the respondent no. 2 vide