Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 14

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Rajesh Shankar, J
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Lakhi Bauri – Respondent
Civil Review No. 16 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashok Kumar Yadav, Anish Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Baibhaw Gahlaut, Ajit Kumar

A review petition is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or addressing newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used as an 'appeal in disguise' to re-litigate merits or raise belated arguments, especially to evade compliance with court orders.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review jurisdiction - Scope and limitations - An application for review is not an appeal in disguise - Review is permissible only on discovery of new matter or evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, or error apparent on the face of the record - (Paras 33, 34, 36)

(B) Administrative Law - Duty to pay compensation - Government authorities cannot deny obligation to pay compensation to valid owners by citing internal accounting procedures or by labeling payments as fees or charges when such funds were received in lieu of land transfer - (Para 31)

(C) Judicial Discipline - Frivolous litigation - Filing a review petition merely to avoid compliance with court orders in contempt proceedings is an abuse of process and warrants imposition of exemplary costs - (Para 37, 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to review a previous order directing payment of compensation for land acquired from private individuals. The petitioners contended that the funds collected from the beneficiary entity were for fees and cesses rather than compensation, and hence unavailable for disbursement to the claimants. The petitioners had failed to raise this distinction during the original writ proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the review petitioners failed to establish any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The plea regarding the nature of the funds was an afterthought raised solely to evade compliance with an ongoing contempt proceeding. The court held that the beneficiary entity had indeed deposited funds with the State, and it is the state’s duty to ensure this amount reaches the true owners regardless of the nomenclature used in internal accounts.

Issues: The main issues were whether the review petitioners had demonstrated valid grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 and whether the State could avoid paying compensation by reclassifying the funds received from the beneficiary as non-compensation fees.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to rehear a matter or correct errors that are not self-evident. A party cannot raise new, inconsistent arguments in a review petition that were not presented in the original proceedings simply to escape the consequences of a contempt case. Justice demands that once the state receives funds for land transfer, it remains liable to satisfy the claims of the parties dispossessed of their land.

Result: Review petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the official who signed the affidavit.

Table of Content
1. basis of writ petition regarding compensation for dispossessed land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. review petitioners' contention regarding 'gair mazarua' land status. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. bpcl argument on compensation payment and lack of notice of encumbrances. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. court's analysis of the state's failure to compensate and lack of review grounds. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. limited scope of high court's review jurisdiction defined. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. dismissal of review with costs for state's frivolous conduct. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

Order No. 19 Dated: 08.01.2026

1.The present Civil Review has been filed seeking review of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4278 of 2020.

2. The writ petitioners (the respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein) filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4278 of 2020 for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation for the land appertaining to Khata No. 136, Plot No. 432, measuring an area of 2 acres of Mauza Radhanagar, Thana No.36/201, Halka No. 13, Circle-Chas, District-Bokaro (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) which was transferred to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for construction of Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants (POL) depot along with railway siding by illegally dispossessing them. Further prayer was made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of interest @ 15% from the date of dispossession and other consequential benefits accruing therefrom. The writ petitioners also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay damages to them for illegal possession and use of the said land.

3. The claim of the writ petitioners before the writ court was that the said land was settled in favour of the writ petitioner no. 1 under the scheme of allotment of land to SC/ST and Backward Class, vide Settlement Case No. 18(XIII) of 1988-89 and jamabandi of the said land was opened in her name.

4. A proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short, the Act, 1950) was initiated for cancellation of jamabandi of the said land and a notice was issued to the writ petitioner no. 1.

5. It was further stated in the said writ petition that the BPCL had started construction on the said land without payment of compensation to the writ petitioners.

6. The BPCL took stand in the said writ proceeding that the compensation for acquisition of the said land was already deposited with the State Government and considering the said stand, the writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 directing the State Government to determine appropriate compensation of the said land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “the Act, 2013”) and to pay the same to the writ petitioner no.1 within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order.

7. The review petitioners have sought review of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed in the said writ petition on the ground that the nature of the said land was ‘Gair Mazarua’ and in that view of the matter, no proceeding for acquisition of the said land was initiated, rather the same was permanently transferred to the BPCL vide order as contained in memo no. 3333 dated 04.09.2019.

8. It is also contended that in lieu of the transfer of 3.04 acres of land, the BPCL had paid a sum of Rs.91,13,954/- as “Salami, Lagan and cess” to the State-Government and the BPCL had incorrectly submitted in the writ proceeding that it had made payment of compensation for acquisition of the said land.

9. It is further contended that one Niwaran Marandi along with others had claimed title over 10 acres out of 69.65 acres of land and had approached this court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3648 of 2019 (Niwaran Maran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 14

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDRajesh Shankar, JState of Jharkhand – AppellantVersusLakhi Bauri – RespondentCivil Review No. 16 of 2025

A review petition is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or addressing newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used as an 'appeal in disguise' to re-litigate merits or raise belated arguments, especially to evade compliance with court orders.

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Rajesh Shankar, J
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Lakhi Bauri – Respondent
Civil Review No. 16 of 2025