Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is limited to correcting manifest errors and cannot be used to re-litigate merits. Furthermore, administrative lapses between authorities cannot deprive landowners of their absolute right to just compensation and statutory interest.

Order on Board

1. The review petitioner NHAI (respondent in WPC) seeks review of the order dated 07.03.2022 passed in WPC No. 1286 of 2018 on the ground that CALA (Competent Authority for Land Acquisition) cannot modify the award once passed.

2. The writ petition bearing WPC No. 1286 of 2018 was preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein), for issuance of appropriate direction to the concerned authority for payment of amount of compensation as determined vide award dated 21.12.2017 in the Land Acquisition Case No. 1A-82/2016-17. It was further stated that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by respondent/ NHAI for the purpose of widening and upgradation of National Highway No.06. Land acquisition proceeding was initiated, in which the award dated 21.12.2017 was passed granting compensation of Rs. 1,06,49,302/- for the acquired land & property and Rs.15,93,644/-for rehabilitation and settlement but no amount of compensation was paid to the petitioner.

3. The said petition was disposed off by this court vide order dated 07.03.2022, which is sought to be reviewed, in the following terms :

“7. Hence, there being no such power of review available to the respondent No.4, a request if any that has been made by the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 is without any consequence and that does not lead to any lawful remedy. Therefore, the award dated 21.12.2017 that has been passed in this case in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.4 is subject to compliance by the respondent No.1, 2 and

8. Hence, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, this petition is allowed and disposed off at the motion stage. The respondent No.1, 2 and 3 are directed to make payment of the compensation as determined by the respondent No.4 in award dated 21.12.2017 within a time limit of 90 days from today and on deposition of such compensation amount, the respondent No.4 is directed to make disbursement of the compensation amount to the petitioner at the earliest.

9. With these directions, the petition is disposed off.”

4.

(a) Now the present review has been filed by the petitioner/NHAI and submits that the order dated 07.03.2022 passed in W.P.C. No. 1286 of 2018 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. It is contended that in paragraph 3 of the said order, has erroneously recorded that the petitioner NHAI has sought review of the award dated 21.12.2017 vide letter dated 25.01.2018, whereas in fact no such request for review was ever made. It is further submitted that the letter dated 25.01.2018 merely pointed out defects in the award dated 21.12.2017 and sought re-examination and issuance of a legally valid award, which is distinct from seeking a review. He further submits that under the National Highways Act, 1956, the CALA has no power of review, and once an award is passed, the authority becomes functus officio. Therefore, the subsequent award dated 21.12.2017, being in the nature of a review of the earlier award dated 20.07.2017, is without jurisdiction, illegal, and a nullity in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by statute expressly or by necessary implication. In the absence of any such provision, any exercise of review jurisdiction is ultra vires. The legal position in this regard is well settled.

(b) Learned counsel also submits that this Court has failed to consider the relevant material on record, including the letter dated 29.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which mandates that compensation under the National Highways Act is to be determined in accordance with Schedule I of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, the detection of which does not