Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

The Allahabad High Court recently noted that a review is only allowed if an error is apparent at first glance without requiring a lengthy process of reasoning and reevaluating all the evidence to find the erroras this would amount to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Explanation of the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPCa bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Piyush Agrawal noted that a judgment may be subject to review, including if prima facie there appears to be an error or mistake.

“An error, which is not self-evident and has to be discovered by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be a prima facie error which justifies the court in exercising its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 Code. of Civil Procedure”, said the Court.

In this context, the Court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury 1994 And Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale 1959 which held that an assessment should be limited to errors clearly visible at first glance, and that the error should be such that it would be obvious on mere viewing without a lengthy reasoning process.

In both cases, the Apex Court had also underlined that re-evaluation of the evidence on record for finding fault would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not at all permissible.

The Court also held that a review is not admissible on the ground that the decision was incorrect on the merits, as is the case with a Court of Appeal, and that a review appeal can only be filed on the grounds set out in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC.

In this context, the Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Union of India v B. Valluvar 2006wherein it was held that the parameters of the discretion of the High Court are to be exercised within the limitations laid down in Section 114 read in Order 47 Rule of CPC and without recording whether there was any error clearly visible on the record first sight of the CPC. record, merit cannot be taken into account.

The Court further explained that the request for review can only be granted on the following grounds:

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

(2) when an error or error is found in the record, or

(3) on any analogous basis.

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

In essence, the petitioners were owners of certain tracts of land in Village Sadarpur, Gautam Buddh Nagarand they sought damages of 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 of 2002 and 2003.

They based their decision on a Full Bench ruling in Gajraj Singh & Ors. v. State of UP (2011). A Division Bench (April 2022) rejected their petition, as it noted that the issue had already been resolved in the Gajraj Singh case in which similar subpoena requests were rejected.

The Bench further said that the petitioners could not get any relief beyond what was decided in the case Gajraj Singh judgement.

In the review plea, the petitioners submitted that they had filed a writ petition earlier in 2012, which was disposed of by the Division Bench in accordance with the Full Bench judgment in The case of Gajraj Singh (2011).

In this backdrop, it was emphasized that they were entitled to full compensation of 64.7% and admittedly, the same has been awarded to the petitioners.

The petitioners further submitted that the Full Bench had already discussed the additional compensation for lands in the village, where their properties were also located.

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

Now, in the review, they submitted that despite raising these contentions, the Division Bench had rejected their plea, and hence they sought a review of the same.

On the other hand, the respondent (NOIDA) opposed the revision petition contending that the petitioners’ land was acquired through mutual negotiations and sale deeds executed in November 2001 and registered in July 2002.

Thus, it was submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to additional compensation under the Full Bench judgment in The case of Gajraj Singh (2011) because their land was acquired before the acquisition notices (Articles 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act).

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

It was also argued that the petitioners were not entitled to increased compensation (64.7%) as it was only available to those whose land was acquired between March 2002 and March 2009, and the petitioners’ land was not eligible, as it was purchased in 2001.

It was thus submitted that the order of the Division Bench was sound and the revision petition against it was without merit.

In the backdrop of these observations, the court, noting that it cannot re-examine the merits of a case or grant a new hearing under the guise of a petition for review, concluded that the petitioners had not satisfied the grounds for revision. .

Thus, the Court observed that the Division Bench had thoroughly considered all aspects of the matter before dismissing the petition and found no valid grounds to allow the revision petition and, therefore, the same was dismissed.

Performances

Lawyer for applicant: Ashish Mishra, Jai Shanker Misra

Counsel for the opposing party: CSC, Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Case title – Chetram @ Mintu and 4 others vs State of UP and 3 others

Quote:

Click here to read/download the order