IMPORTANT POINT
A review application must demonstrate that new evidence was not within the applicant's knowledge at the time of the original order, emphasizing the need for due diligence.

ORDER :

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XIV Rule 1, r/w. Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order passed in W.P. No. 20836 of 2010 dated 19.01.2011 and to allow this Review Application.

1. The petitioner herein seeks review of the order passed by this Court dated 19.01.2011 in W.P. No. 20836 of 2010.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents therein to pay the compensation for the land belonged to the petitioner situated in S. No. 4, 6, 7 and 10, corresponding T.S. Nos. 22/2 and 23 in Block No. 4 of Sembiam Village, Perambur-Purasaiwalkam Taluk.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing, after recording the stand of the review applicant/3rd respondent in the writ petition, this Court passed the following order, which is sought to be reviewed.

“4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent-Corporation would submit that the legal heirs of late A.N. Kupparam are entitled to receive the compensation and unless the assessment of compensation is made by the second respondent, they are not in a position to pay the same to the legal representatives of late A.N. Kupparam.

5. Mr. R. Neelakantan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the second respondent may be directed to do the said exercise within a stipulated period so as to enable the third respondent to pay the compensation.

6. In the result, this Court directs the third respondent to send the proposal for payment of compensation in respect of the land in question within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the second respondent and the second respondent, on receipt of such a proposal from the third respondent, is directed to consider the same and pass orders within a period of six weeks thereafter and also communicate the same to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.”

4. Now, the present review application is filed mainly on the ground that at the time of hearing of the writ petition, certain vital records were not traceable and now only the review applicant found that the land in dispute is classified as 'Boosthi Odai' and used for drainage of flood water.

5. The learned counsel for the review applicant/3rd respondent by taking this court to the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner of the year 1959 submitted that even in the said document, while describing the subject matter of the sale deed, 'odai' was shown as western boundary and therefore, the disputed land is only an 'odai' and as a result, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.

6. It is settled law that discovery of new facts or new document per se is not a ground for seeking review of the order. The person who seeks to review the order on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence, must establish that it was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time the order was passed, notwithstanding exercise of due diligence by him. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the observation of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. v. The Collector, Varanasi and Others, AIR 1982 All 355 : MANU/UP/0304/1982, which reads as follows:

“9. Coming to the facts of the instant case it would be seen that here the review is sought not on the ground that a glaring omission or a patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial infallibility nor on the ground that this Court committed by grave and palpable error in deciding the writ petition. It has been filed only on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence. As has been emphasised by the Supreme Court in A.T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma, MANU/SC/0058/1978 which has been followed by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat University v. Sonal P. Shah, MANU/GJ/0064/1982 before a review application can be enterta