Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be utilized as a mechanism for re-hearing an appeal or substituting a view where no patent illegality exists.

JUDGMENT :

1. The interlocutory application has been filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 42 (forty-two) days. Neither any reply has been filed by the Respondents, nor any serious objection has been raised at the time of arguments. Considering the period of delay and the reasons mentioned, the interlocutory application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Civil Review 12 of 2025.

2. The instant petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed in LPA No. 485 of 2018 dated 31.08.2024, wherein the appeal filed against the order dated 21.06.2018 passed in WP(C) 3653 of 2015 was dismissed.

Background of the Case.

3. The Petitioner claims to be the rightful owner of land appertaining to Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 admeasuring an area of 1.04 acres and the land appertaining to Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32 admeasuring an area of 1.22 acres; both plots in the village of Sarwal, Thana No. 334, Police Station Namkum, District-Ranchi. The same was purchased by the Petitioner vide 2 (two) sale deeds dated 27.10.2005 and 8.5.2006 and thereafter the same was also mutated in her name.

4. The Petitioner’s case is that though 0.31 acres of land from Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.23 acres of land from Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32 was acquired for which compensation was also paid; however, the Respondent- State illegally encroached upon an additional, 0.31 acres of land from Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.50 acres of land from Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32. It is pleaded that after several representations, the revenue officers registered a ‘Measurement Case No. 13 of 2010-11’, wherein it was confirmed that construction was going on 0.62 acres in Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.73 acres in Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32.

5. The Petitioner’s submission is that once it was established that construction was going on extra portion of land which was acquired in Measurement Case No. 13 of 2010-11, the Petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) 3653 of 2015, claiming compensation for the extra land being utilized by the Respondent. The Respondent-State, contested the writ petition by stating that the ‘additional land’ was further acquired in a Land Acquisition case being Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2010-11 and despite notice, the compensation amount was not received by the Petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 21.6.2018, giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent officer and also prefer a statutory appeal, if the situation so requires.

6. This order was assailed by filing a Letters Patent Appeal which was registered as LPA No. 485 of 2018. The primary contention of the Petitioner was that the Ld. Single Judge, has failed to consider that without a notification, no proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be said to be valid in the eye of law. Considering the submission of the Petitioner (Appellant therein), this Court considered it fit to summon the entire records of the land acquisition proceeding vide order dated 1.5.2023.

7. This Court after giving due consideration to the facts of the case and the applicable law dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.08.2024. This Court, in Para-11 of its judgement held that notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published by the Responden