Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Permissible When Error Is Apparent On Record Sans Requirement Of Reappraisal Of Entire Evidence: Allahabad HC

Explaining the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if a mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record.

“An error, which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure,” the Court said.

In this regard, the Court referred to Top Court's judgments in the cases of Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury 1994 and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale 1959 wherein it was held that a review must be confined to error apparent on the face of record, and the error must be such as would be evident on a mere looking without any long drawn process of reasoning.

In both cases, the Apex Court had also underscored that a reappraisal of evidence on record for finding an error would amount to an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not at all permissible

The Court also opined that a review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court, and that a review plea lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC.

In this regard, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India v. B. Valluvar 2006, wherein it was held that the parameters of the High Court's review jurisdiction must be exercised within the limitations as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule of CPC, and without recording a finding as to whether an error existed apparent on the face of the record, merit cannot be considered.

The Court further explained that the review application can be allowed only on the following grounds:

(1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or

(2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or

(3) on any analogous ground.

The Court made these observations while dismissing an application filed to review a judgment and order passed by a division bench in April 2022.

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioners were owners of certain pieces of land in Village Sadarpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar, and they sought compensation at Rs. 44,000 per square meter for 5% additional Abadi land instead of the Rs. 22,000 per square meter offered by the State under land acquisition notifications from 2002 and 2003.

They relied on a Full Bench ruling in Gajraj Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2011). However, a Division Bench (April 2022) dismissed their petition as it noted that the issue had already been settled in the Gajraj Singh case, where similar writ petitions were rejected.

The Bench further said that the petitioners could not be granted any relief beyond what had been decided in the Gajraj Singh judgment.

In the review plea, the petitioners argued that they had previously filed a Writ Petition in 2012, which was disposed of by the Division Bench in accordance with the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj Singh's case (2011).

Against this backdrop, it was pressed that they were entitled to get full compensation @ 64.7%, and admittedly, the same has been accorded to the petitioners.

The petitioners further argued that the Full Bench had already addressed the additional compensation for lands in the Village where their properties were also located.

They relied on the decision in Pratap Singh vs. State of UP (2012), where the Division Bench had granted similar relief to petitioners from other villages in NOIDA. They also cited a 2016 NOIDA Board resolution that provided for compensation for additional abadi land.

Now, in the review, they argued that despite these contentions being advanced, the Division Bench rejected their petition, and hence, they were seeking a review of the same.

On the other hand, the respondent authority (NOIDA) opposed the review application by arguing that the petitioners' land had been acquired through mutual negotiation and sale deeds executed in November 2001 and registered in July 2002.

Thus, it was submitted that the petitioners had no right to additional compensation under the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj Singh's case (2011) as their land was purchased before the acquisition notifications (Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act).

It was categorically argued that the petitioners' claim for additional compensation was based on misleading facts, as their land was not acquired via the final notifications but through sale deeds.

It was also submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to enhanced compensation (64.7%) as it was only available to those whose land was acquired between March 2002 and March 2009, and the petitioners' land did not qualify, having been purchased in 2001.

Thus, it was submitted that the Division Bench's order was sound, and the review petition against the same lacked merit.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the court, noting that it can't re-examine the merits of a case or grant a rehearing under the guise of a review petition, the Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to meet the grounds for review.

Thus, noting that the Division Bench had thoroughly addressed all aspects of the case before dismissing the writ petition, the Court found no valid grounds to allow the review plea, and hence, the same was dismissed.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Ashish Mishra, Jai Shanker Misra

Counsel for Opposite Party: C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Case title - Chetram @ Mintu and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

Citation :

Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder