Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR
Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad – Appellant
Versus
Chintamani Devi, W/o late Balakrishna Prasad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the land dispute (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments for review by the nagar parishad (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. court's analysis on review grounds (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 46 , 49 , 69) |
| 4. principles governing review authority (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 68) |
| 5. conclusion to recall the prior order and list for hearing (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for review of the order dated 26.06.2024 passed in L.P.A No.37 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners herein by upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Factual Matrix of the Case:
2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the instant review petition needs to refer herein which is being referred herein.
3. The Writ Petition being W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021 has been preferred for issuance of a direction upon the respondents not to use the residential land of the respondent/writ petitioner’s land appertaining to Khata No. 1/44,
The issuance of rent receipts does not confer legal title to land, and compensation directives cannot stand in the absence of established title under land acquisition laws.
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
Review applications require a clear error on record to succeed, as they do not allow re-examination of evidence or prior conclusions unless an apparent error occurs.
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 demands clean hands and full disclosure of material facts like prior arbitration; suppression justifies dismissal. Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 limited to paten....
A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used as a means to reargue the case.
A review petition is maintainable where there is fraud, suppression of material facts and developments involving the same land and that too when the property already became a property of the State.
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
