# Committee of Management, D.P. Public School, Gautambudh Nagar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 489
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 54341 of 2010
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-d-p-public-school-gautambudh-nagar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50313
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Civil Law- Code of Civil Procedure-1908Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1- It is well
settled that error apparent on the face of
the record should not be an error which
has to be fished out and searched-The
power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake but not to
substitute a view-that though it can be
argued by the counsel for the review
applicant that some material such as
Master plan, the nature of the project, the
land use of the acquired land were not
taken into consideration by the Court in
the original judgment (under review),
however,
consideration
of
the
said
arguments
would
require
us
to
appreciate the material on record which
was allegedly ignored by the Court in
the original order and the said exercise
of re-hearing being impermissible within
the scope of review-No good ground to
exercise the power of review in the
instant case-The judgment and order of
this Court under review having attained
finality between the parties, in case of
any mistake on the part of the Court in
ignoring the pleadings on record and
arriving at a different conclusion by
considering
the
other
material
on
record, only remedy before the review
applicant was to approach the Apex
Court placing the alleged wrong in the
judgment under review-(Para 31, 32 &
39)

Review application dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,963 of 71,823. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39963 for what follows._

6 All. Committee of Management, D.P. Public School, Gautambudh Nagar Vs. State of U.P. &
 Ors.
489
second respondent having already served
notice under Section 13 (2) and sixty days
period had expired since then, it had
become entitled to realise rent from the
petitioner, in enforcement of its rights as a
secured creditor.

14. In the facts obtaining above, we
are of the opinion that no purpose would be
served in relegating the petitioner to agitate
its claim before the District Magistrate or
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It will only
lead to procrastination of the litigation.

15. Accordingly, we dispose of the
instant petition restraining the second
respondent from taking actual physical
possession of the property in question from
the petitioner until the lease is determined
in accordance with law. The petitioner will,
however, be liable to pay rent from now
onwards to the second respondent and the
said amount will be appropriated by it
towards adjustment of the outstanding
liability of the borrowers, in respect of the
loan taken by them.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 489
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ-C No. 54341 of 2010
Writ-C No. 55314 of 2011
Writ-C No. 56451 of 2011
Writ-C No. 7490 of 2012
Writ-C No. 20719 of 20193
Writ-C No. 11159 of 20193
Writ-C No. 11157 of 20193

Committee of Management, D.P. Public
School, Gautambudh Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ravi Agrawal, Sri P.K. Chaurasia

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, Sri
Suresh Singh, Sri Manish Goyal (Sr. Adv.)

Civil Law- Code of Civil Procedure-1908Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1- It is well
settled that error apparent on the face of
the record should not be an error which
has to be fished out and searched-The
power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake but not to
substitute a view-that though it can be
argued by the counsel for the review
applicant that some material such as
Master plan, the nature of the project, the
land use of the acquired land were not
taken into consideration by the Court in
the original judgment (under review),
however,
consideration
of
the
said
arguments
would
require
us
to
appreciate the material on record which
was allegedly ignored by the Court in
the original order and the said exercise
of re-hearing being impermissible within
the scope of review-No good ground to
exercise the power of review in the
instant case-The judgment and order of
this Court under review having attained
finality between the parties, in case of
any mistake on the part of the Court in
ignoring the pleadings on record and
arriving at a different conclusion by
considering
the
other
material
on
record, only remedy before the review
applicant was to approach the Apex
Court placing the alleged wrong in the
judgment under review-(Para 31, 32 &
39)

Review application dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Sahara
India
Commercial
Corporation
Limited & ors. Vs St. of U. P. & ors. (2017) 11
SCC 339
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon Vs U.O.I. & ors.
1980 (Supp) SCC 562

3. Sow Chandra Kante & anr. Vs Sheikh Habib
(1975) 1 SCC 674

4. Parsion Devi Vs Sumitri Dev (1997) 8 SCC
715

5. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs Govt. of A.P
AIR 1964 SC 1372

6. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I. (2000) 6 SCC 224

7. Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs Ahmad Ishaque AIR
1955 SC 233

8. Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati & ors. (2013) 8
SCC 320

9. Union of India Vs Sandur Manganese and
Iron Ores Limited & ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337

10. Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assam St.
Electricity Board & ors. (2020) 2 SCC 677

11. S. Murali Sundaram Vs Jothibai Kannan &
ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185

12. Perry Kansagra Vs Smriti Madan Kansagra
(2019) 20 SCC 753

13. Pancham Lal Pandey Vs Neeraj Kumar
Mishra & ors. 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 123

14. Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs
Netaji Cricket Club & ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741

15. Rajendra Singh Vs Lt. Governor, Andaman &
Nicobar Islands & ors. (2005) 13 SCC 289

16. Krishna Nand Shukla Vs Director of Higher
Education, Allahabad & ors. (2019) 14 SCC 365

17. Radhey Shyam (Dead) Through Lrs. & ors.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2011 (5) SCC 553

18. Nand Kishore Gupta and other Vs St. of U.P.
& ors. (2010) 10 SCC 282

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.)

In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
(Review)
Application No. 76758 of 2017 filed in
Writ-C No. 11157 of 2013

In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
(Review)
Application No. 76755 of 2017 filed in
Writ-C No. 11159 of 2013

In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
(Review)
Application No. 76750 of 2017 filed in
Writ-C No. 20719 of 2013

In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
(Review)
Application No. 76733 of 2017 filed in
Writ-C No. 7490 of 2012

In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
(Review)
Application No. 76728 of 2017 filed in
Writ-C No. 56451 of 2011

In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
(Review)
Application No. 76739 of 2017 filed in
Writ-C No. 55314 of 2011

In
Re:
Civil
Misc.
(Review)
Application No. 76745 of 2017 filed in
Writ-C No. 54341 of 2010

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Praveen
Kumar, Sri Kamaljeet Singh and Sri Suresh
Singh learned counsels appearing for the
respondent authority, Sri P.K. Chaurasia
and Ms. Sarita Shukla learned counsels for
the opposite parties/writ petitioners on the
review
applications
related
to
the
acquisition of the land of Village Mirzapur.

2. This bunch of review petitions is
directed against the judgment and order
dated 22.12.2016 passed by this Court in
allowing seven writ petitions challenging
acquisition notifications under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, with the direction to
the
State
to
determine
and
pay
compensation
to
the
petitioners
in
accordance with the provisions of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013
(hereinafter
referred to as "the Act, 2013"), treating the
6 All. Committee of Management, D.P. Public School, Gautambudh Nagar Vs. State of U.P. &
 Ors.
491
date
of
acquisition
notification
as
22.12.2016, same as the date of the
judgment. The claim for compensation for
constructions standing over the lands in
question on the date of preliminary
notification was also directed to be
computed.

3. The aforesaid directions had been
issued while holding that the notifications
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 were bad as the
decision of the State Government for
invoking power under Section 17(1) and
17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
for invocation of the urgency clause, was
without any material for invoking such
power. On the statement of the counsels for
the writ petitioners, therein while noticing
that no award had been made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer with
reference
to
the
notifications
under
challenge, placing reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Sahara India
Commercial Corporation Limited and
others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others [Civil Appeal No. 11501 of 2011]
decided on 30.11.2016, it was concluded
that since the notifications for acquisition
were held bad, the tenure holders were
entitled for compensation under the Act,
2013.

4. Before going into the rival
contentions of the counsels for the parties
to examine the merits of the review
petition, we would like to discuss the law
pertaining to concept and scope of review
so as to assess as to whether review is
permissible in the facts and circumstances
of the instant case.

Section 114 of the Code of Civil
Procedure confers power of review on the
Courts; it may be reproduced as under:-

"Section 114. Review. - Subject
as aforesaid, any person considering
himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from
which an appeal is allowed by this Code,
but from which no appeal has been
preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from
which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference
from a Court of Small Causes, may apply
for a review of judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order, and
the Court may make such order thereon as
it thinks fit."

Order 47 Rule 1(1) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 provides application
for review of judgment which reads as
under:-

"Order
XLVII
Rule
1(1).
Application for review of judgment:- (1)
Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or Order from
which an appeal is allowed, but from which
no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or Order from
which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference
from a Court of Small Causes, and who,
from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise
of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or
Order made, or on account of some mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record
of for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or
Order made against him, may apply for a
review of judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the Order."

5. It is settled by a catena of decisions
that review of an earlier order cannot be
done unless the Court is satisfied that
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material error, manifest on the face of the
order, undermines its soundness or results
in
miscarriage
of
justice.
Error
contemplated under the rule must be such
which is apparent on the face of the record
and not an error which has to be fished out
and searched. It must be an error of
inadvertence. The power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake but
not to substitute a view. The mere
possibility of two views on the subject is
not a ground for review. 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. A review is by no means
an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected, but lies
only for patent error.

In Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs.
Union of India and others, it was held that
a review is not a routine procedure. While
relying on the previous decision in Sow
Chandra Kante and another vs. Sheikh
Habib, it was noted therein that:-

"A review of a judgment is a
serious step and reluctant resort to it is
proper only where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept
in earlier by judicial fallibility. ... The
present stage is not a virgin ground but
review of an earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality."

In Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi
while considering the ambit and scope of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, referring to the
earlier decision of the Apex Court in
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt.
of A.P., it was noted in paragraphs '7' to
'9' as under:-

"7. It is well settled that review
proceedings have to be strictly confined to
the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh (1965
(5) SCR 174 at 186) this Court opined:

'11. What, however, we are not
concerned with is whether the statement in
the order of September 1959 that the case
did not involve any substantial question of
law is an "error apparent on the face of the
record". The fact that on the earlier
occation that Court held on an identical
state of facts that a substantial question of
law arose would not per se be conclusive,
for the earlier order itself might be
erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement
was wrong, it would not follow that it was
an "error apparent on the face of the
record", for there is a distinct which is real,
though it might not always be capable of
exposition between a mere erroneous
decision and a decision which could be
characterised
as
vitiated
by
"error
apparent." A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard corrected. but lies only
for patent error.'

8. Again, in Smt. Meera Bhanjia
Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995
(1) SCC 170) while quoting with approval
a
passage
from
Abhiram
Taleshwar
Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Sharma &
Ors. (1979 (4) SCC 389), this Court once
again held that review proceedings are not
by way of an appeal and have to strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order
47 Rule 1 CPC.

9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a
judgment may be open to review inter alia
if there is a mistake or an error 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 review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order
6 All. Committee of Management, D.P. Public School, Gautambudh Nagar Vs. State of U.P. &
 Ors.
493
47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected". A review petition, it must be
remembered has limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise."

In Lily Thomas vs. Union of
India, it was observed in paragraphs '56'
and '58' that:-

"56. It follows, therefore, that the
power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake and not to
substitute a view. Such powers can be
exercised within the limits of the statute
dealing with the exercise of power. The
review cannot be treated an appeal in
disguise. The mere possibility of two views
on the subject is not a ground for
review........xxxxxxxxxxxxxx........................

58.
...................xxxxxxxx....................
The
words
'any-other
sufficient
reason
appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC'
must mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds
at least analogous to those specified in the
rule' as was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki
Ram AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by
this Court in Moron Mar Baseless
Catholics and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius and Ors. AIR 1954 SC
526. Error apparent on the face of the
proceedings is an error which is based on
clear ignorance or disregard of the
provisions of law. in T.C. Basappa v.
Nagappa and Anr. this Court held that such
error is an error which is a patent error
and not a mere wrong decision."

The decision of the Apex Court in
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque
was noted in paragraph '58' of the
aforesaid decision [Lily Thomas (supra)]
to note that:-

"58.
...........xxxxxx............23.
.....It is essential that it should be
something more than a mere error; it must
be one which must be manifest on the face
of the record. The real difficulty with
reference to this matter, however, is not so
much in the statement of the principle as in
its application to the facts of a particular
case. When does an error cease to be mere
error and become art error apparent on the
face of the record?......xxxx........."

All the above noted decisions
have been taken note of by the Apex Court
in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and
others to hold in paragraphs '17', '18' and
'19' as under:-

"17. In a review petition, it is not
open to the Court to reappreciate the
evidence and reach a different conclusion,
even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived
at on appreciation of evidence cannot be
assailed in a review petition unless it is
shown that there is an error apparent on
the face of the record or for some reason
akin thereto. This Court, in Kerala State
Electricity
Board
vs.
Hitech
Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. &
Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 651, held as under:

"10. .........In a review petition it
is not open to this Court to reappreciate the
evidence and reach a different conclusion,
even if that is possible. Learned counsel for
the Board at best sought to impress us that
the correspondence exchanged between the
parties did not support the conclusion
reached by this Court. We are afraid such a
submission cannot be permitted to be
advanced in a review petition. The
appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate court. If
on appreciation of the evidence produced,
the court records a finding of fact and
reaches a conclusion, that conclusion
cannot be assailed in a review petition
unless it is shown that there is an error
apparent on the face of the record or for
some reason akin thereto. It has not been
contended before us that there is any error
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
apparent on the face of the record. To
permit the review petitioner to argue on a
question of appreciation of evidence would
14 amount to converting a review petition
into an appeal in disguise."

18. Review is not re-hearing of an
original matter. The power of review
cannot be confused with appellate power
which enables a superior court to correct
all errors committed by a subordinate
court. A repetition of old and overruled
argument is not enough to re-open
concluded adjudications. This Court, in
Jain Studios Ltd. vs. Shin Satellite Public
Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under:

"11. So far as the grievance of
the applicant on merits is concerned, the
learned counsel for the opponent is right in
submitting that virtually the applicant seeks
the same relief which had been sought at
the time of arguing the main matter and
had been negatived. Once such a prayer
had been refused, no review petition would
lie which would convert rehearing of the
original matter. It is settled law that the
power of review cannot be confused with
appellate power which enables a superior
court to correct all errors committed by a
subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an
original matter. A repetition of old and
overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications. The power
of review can be exercised with extreme
care, caution and circumspection and only
in exceptional cases.

12. When a prayer to appoint an
arbitrator by the applicant herein had been
made at the time when the arbitration
petition was heard and was rejected, the
same relief cannot be sought by an indirect
method by filing a review petition. Such
petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of
"second innings" which is impermissible
and unwarranted and cannot be granted."

19. Review proceedings are not
by way of an appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order
XLVII
Rule
1
of
CPC.
In
review
jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the
view of the judgment cannot be the ground
for invoking the same. As long as the point
is already dealt with and answered, the
parties are not entitled to challenge the
impugned judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the
review jurisdiction."

The principles of review have
been summarized therein, in paragraph '20'
as under:-

"20. Thus, in view of the above,
the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1 When the review will be
maintainable:-

(i)
Discovery
of
new
and
important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record; (iii) Any other
sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient
reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram
vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by
this
Court
in
Moran
Mar
Basselios
Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to
mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule". The
same principles have been reiterated in
Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron
Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275.

20.2 When the review will not be
maintainable:-

(i) A repetition of old and
overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
6 All. Committee of Management, D.P. Public School, Gautambudh Nagar Vs. State of U.P. &
 Ors.
495

(ii)
Minor
mistakes
of
inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot
be equated with the original hearing of the
case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable
unless the material error, manifest on the
face of the order, undermines its soundness
or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is re-heard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two
views on the subject cannot be a ground for
review.

(vii) The error apparent on the
face of the record should not be an error
which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii)
The
appreciation
of
evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable
when the same relief sought at the time of
arguing
the
main
matter
had
been
negatived."

6. The same view has been reiterated
by the Apex Court in a reported decision in
Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese
and Iron Ores Limited and others and it
was
stated
therein
that
the
error
contemplated in the judgment under review
must be one which is apparent on the face
of the record.

It is settled that in review
jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the
view of the judgment cannot be the ground
for invoking the same. As long as the point
is already dealt with and answered, the
parties are not entitled to challenge the
impugned judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the
review
jurisdiction.
In
the
review
jurisdiction, the Court shall interfere only
when there is a glaring omission or patent
mistake or when a grave error has crept in
the impugned judgment. The review
applicant cannot be permitted to reargue
the very same point.

7. In Shanti Conductors Private
Limited vs. Assam State Electricity
Board and others, the same view has been
reiterated.

Referring to the decision of the
Apex Court in Parsion Devi (supra), it was
observed therein that the scope of review is
limited and under the guise of review, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate
and reargue the questions, which have
already been addressed and decided.

8. In S. Murali Sundaram vs.
Jothibai Kannan and others, the Apex
Court while considering the above noted
decisions in Shanti Conductors Private
Limited (supra) and Perry Kansagra vs.
Smriti Madan Kansagra has held that an
error which is required to be detected by a
process of reasoning can hardly be said to
be an error on the face of the record. The
observation of the Apex Court in Perry
Kansagra (supra) has been noted that
while exercising the review jurisdiction in
an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read
with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court
does not sit in appeal over its own order. A
rehearing of the matter is impermissible in
law.

After considering a catena of
decisions on exercise of power of review
and principles relating to exercise of review
jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC,
the Apex Court has noted the principles
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
summed up in Perry Kansagra (supra) as
under:-

"(i) Review proceedings are not
by way of appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order
47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) Power of review may be
exercised when some mistake or error
apparent on the fact of record is found. But
error on the face of record must be such an
error which must strike one on mere
looking at the record and would not require
any longdrawn process of reasoning on the
points where there may conceivably by two
opinions.

(iii) Power of review may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision
was erroneous on merits.

(iv) Power of review can also be
exercised for any sufficient reason which is
wide enough to include a misconception of
fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

(v) An application for review may
be necessitated by way of invoking the
doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."

We may further note the decisions
relied by the learned counsels for the
parties to support their rival submissions.

9. The counsels for the opposite
parties/writ petitioners have relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in Pancham
Lal Pandey vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra
and others to agitate that the power of
review is not to scrutinize the correctness
of the decisions rendered rather to correct
the error, if any, which is visible on the
face of the order/record without going into
as to whether there is a possibility of
another opinion different from the one
expressed.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the review applicant relied on three
decisions to support his submissions that in
the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, review is permissible.

11. The decision of the Apex Court in
Board of Control for Cricket in India vs.
Netaji Cricket Club and others has been
placed before us to submit that under Order
47 Rule 1 of the Code, the application for
review is maintainable not only upon the
discovery of a new and important piece of
evidence or when there exists an error
apparent on the face of the record but also
if the same is necessitated on account of
some mistake or for "any other sufficient
reason". The mistake on the part of the
Court may also call for a review of the
order. An application for review would also
be maintainable if there exists sufficient
reason therefor. What would constitute
sufficient reason would depend on the facts
and circumstances of the case. The words
"sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code are wide enough to include a
misconception of fact or law by a Court or
even an Advocate. An application for
review may be necessitated by way of
invoking
the
doctrine
"actus
curiae
neminem gravabit".

It was argued that the rule of
limitation on the power of review is not
universal. The observation of the Apex Court in
Lily Thomas (supra) in paragraph '52', as noted
in para 92 of the aforesaid judgment in BCCI
(supra) has been placed before us to assert that if
the Court finds that the error pointed out in the
review petition was under a mistake and the
earlier judgment would not have been passed but
for erroneous assumption which in fact did not
exist and its perpetration shall result in
miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the
Court from rectifying the error.

Relevant paragraph '52' in Lily
Thomas (supra) extracted in BCCI (supra)
is noted hereinunder:-
6 All. Committee of Management, D.P. Public School, Gautambudh Nagar Vs. State of U.P. &
 Ors.
497

"52. The dictionary meaning of
the word "review" is "the act of looking,
offer something again with a view to
correction or improvement". It cannot be
denied that the review is the creation of a
statute. This Court in Patel Narshi
Thakershi
v.
Pradyumansinghji
Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 held that
the power of review is not an inherent
power. It must be conferred by law either
specifically or by necessary implication.
The review is also not an appeal in
disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is
a virtue which transcends all barriers and
the rules or procedures or technicalities of
law
cannot
stand
in
the
way
of
administration of justice. Law has to bend
before justice. If the Court finds that the
error pointed out in the review petition was
under a mistake and the earlier judgment
would not have been passed but for
erroneous assumption which in fact did not
exist and its perpetration shall result in
miscarriage of justice nothing would
preclude the Court from rectifying the
error."

 (emphasis supplied)

12. Reliance has further been placed
upon the decision of the Apex Court in
Rajendra
Singh
vs.
Lt.
Governor,
Andaman & Nicobar Islands and others
to argue that the law is well-settled that the
power of judicial review of its own order
inheres
in
every
Court
of
plenary
jurisdiction which extends to correct all
errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The
Court should not hesitate to review their
own earlier order when there exists an error
on the face of the record and the interest of
the justice so demands in appropriate cases.
It was argued that in the facts of the said
case, the Apex Court had noted that the
High Court in original judgment had erred
in overlooking the documents relied on by
the parties. The review jurisdiction, thus,
was held to be available in the facts of that
case as the original judgment was found to
be a clear case of an error apparent on the
face of the record and non-consideration of
relevant
documents.
It
was,
thus,
vehemently urged that in a case where
several vital issues were raised and
documents placed, the High Court fell in
error in not considering the same, the
review jurisdiction would have to be
invoked to correct the error. It was noted by
the Apex Court therein that the original
judgment which did not deal with and
decide many important issues which on
proper consideration may justify the claim
of the appellant therein, was liable to be
reviewed in exercise of the inherent power
of the High Court to prevent miscarriage of
justice.

13. Third decision of the Apex Court
relied by the learned counsel for the
appellant is Krishna Nand Shukla vs.
Director of Higher Education, Allahabad
and others to urgue that the Apex Court
has taken exception to the order of the High
Court in rejecting the review application by
a non-speaking order. The order of
dismissal of the review application, thus,
has been set aside and the matter was
remitted to the High Court to decide the
same afresh on the basis of the pleadings
on record. While doing so, the Apex Court
had gone into the merits of the claim of the
parties to reach at the conclusion that the
High Court has erred in overlooking the
facts of the appellant's case and pleadings
made therein. The error committed by the
High Court in deciding the writ petition
was though brought to the notice of the
Court
by
filing
a
detailed
review
application but the same was dismissed by
a non-speaking order without adverting to
the specific grounds raised in the review
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application. It was held therein that the
judgment of the High Court without
referring to the pleadings in the writ
petition, i.e. pleadings in the counter
affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, cannot be
upheld.

14. Having noted the legal principles
laid down by the Apex Court on the scope
and ambit of review jurisdiction under
Section 114 readwith Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, we are proceeding to note the
arguments of the learned counsels for the
parties to analyse the same in the facts of
the instant case.

15. Placing the judgment under
review, learned Senior Counsel for the
review applicant would submit that only
few facts of the case were noted and
discussed by the Court therein to arrive at
the conclusion that no facts existed before
the State Government for invoking the
powers under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
invocation of urgency provision could not
be justified by the State and, as such, the
notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act were held to be bad.
The only factors which were taken into
consideration by the Court to reach at the
aforesaid conclusion are being noted
hereinunder:-

(i) The communication between
Development Authority, the State and the
District Magistrate recording satisfaction
with the requirement of dispensation of
opportunity of hearing and exercise of
powers under Section 17;

(ii) An office note dated 5.5.2010
giving justification for invocation of
urgency.

It was argued that the recital of
facts in the above noted documents were
noted by the Court to arrive at the
conclusion that only reasons assigned for
dispensing with the opportunity of hearing
to the farmers as per the office note dated
5.5.2010
were:-
(i)
that
there
was
likelihood of encroachment of the land
which was proposed to be acquired; (ii) that
opportunity of hearing may delay the
execution;
(iii)
that
there
was
recommendation of the District Magistrate
for exercise of powers under Section 17 of
the Act.

16. Noticing the above, the Court had
reached at the conclusion that the above
noted three reasons were legally not
sustainable for invoking the urgency as:- (i)
The petitioners were in possession of the
land
holding
the
question
of
any
encroachment/occupation did not arise; (ii)
The report submitted by the District
Magistrate/Development Authority did not
reflect upon any such fact; (iii) Opportunity
of hearing as contemplated under Section 5
provides for a period of 30 days in the
matter of filing of objection. The objection
so filed could always be decided by the
Authority concerned within a reasonable
time and if the authority itself is unable to
decide the objection, it was not open for the
State to contend that such opportunity of
hearing should not be afforded as it will
delay the acquisition.

The opinion drawn by this Court
was that the very purpose of Section 5 of
the Land Acquisition Act would be
frustrated if for the lapse on the part of the
authorities, in not deciding the objection
within the reasonable time, compliance of
Section 5 of the Act could be avoided. The
District Magistrate in his letter dated
5.3.2010 (noted in the decision) did not
disclose any reason for invocation of the
urgency clause and merely stated that he
6 All. Committee of Management, D.P. Public School, Gautambudh Nagar Vs. State of U.P. &
 Ors.
499
was satisfied with the proposal for
invocation of the power under Section 17.

17. Having stated the above, the Court
in the original judgment has proceeded to
note the observations of the Apex Court in
the case of Radhey Shyam (Dead)
Through Lrs. and others vs. State of U.P.
and others in paragraphs '55' to '59' to
arrive at the final conclusion of the
acquisition notifications being bad for the
reason that there was no justification for
invocation of urgency clause.

18. Placing the above recital in the
original judgment, it was argued by the
learned Senior counsel for the review
applicant that none of the factual aspects of
the matter brought on record by means of
the counter affidavit had been looked into.
The judgment did not deal with and decide
the important and vital issues in the case.
The mistakes in the original judgment
pointed out by the learned counsel for the
review applicant are:-

(i) the nature of the project, the
purpose of acquisition and the Master Plan
had been completely ignored while relying
on the decision of the Apex Court in
Radhey Shyam (supra) to hold that
invocation of urgency clause under Section
17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act in the
instant case, where the land was proposed
to be acquired for the purpose of Planned
Development in favour of the Development
Authority, was unwarranted.

(ii) The recital in the counter
affidavit that the Industrial Development
Area was divided into various sites for the
use as set out in the Master Plan and the
land use within the Industrial Development
Area was not merely Industrial but
included
Residential,
Commercial,
Industrial, Institutional, Greens, Amenities
and such other uses as mentioned in the
Development Plan, had been completed
ignored.

(iii) In the counter affidavit, it
was
submitted
that
the
request
for
acquisition of the land was made by the
Authority for planned development in the
area of Village Mirzapur, in terms of the
Master Plan. In the justification for urgency
made for the acquisition, it was stated that
the lands adjoining Village Mirzapur had
either been acquired in the past or the
proceeding for acquisition of adjoining land
was in process. In order to maintain the
continuity of infrastructural services, there
was urgency to acquire the plots in
question. The land of which the acquisition
was proposed under the notification in
question, would, interalia, be utilized for
infrastructure
like
roads,
sewage,
electrification, education, medical facilities,
trade and commerce, residence.

(iv) The statement in the counter
affidavit justifying the invocation of
urgency was that when a large chunk of
land was being acquired, it will involve
number of farmers going through the
normal procedure (without invocation of
urgency clause) and it would take years and
years to invite, hear and dispose of the
objections, verbal or written followed by
Court cases, which in turn would further be
very time consuming. On account of the
delay, the very purpose of acquisition of
the land would be defeated and frustrated.
It was stated that if the land was not
immediately made available, it would
possibly affect the industrial/infrastructural
growth of the State. Encroachment may
also adversely affect the concept of planned
development.

(v) Further statement about the
proposed use of the land in particular under
the notifications in question was that the
said land would be used for residential
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plots scheme launched in the year 2009
(first phase). On the publication of the
scheme there was overwhelming response
of the people in the locality and, as such, it
was decided to increase the number of plots
by acquiring more area. It was also pointed
out that under the said scheme, 17% plots
out of the total available plots were
reserved for farmers of the villages of
District Gautam Budh Nagar. The land
which fall under the notified area of
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development Authority had either been
acquired or directly purchased by the
Authority. The land acquisition, in the
above circumstances was urgently required.

(vi) All the above materials
indicating urgency were placed before the
State Government upon which it had
recorded subjective satisfaction for arriving
at a conclusion of invocation of urgency
provision dispensing with the enquiry
under Section 5A of the Act, 1896.

(vii) It was also brought on record
that under the impugned notifications,
55.2023 hectares of the lands were
acquired, out of which possession of
36.7810 hectares had been taken and
transferred to the Development Authority
on different dates. As many as 218 persons
were affected by the notifications in
question and 110 persons had received
compensation under the Agreement Rules,
1997.

(viii) On the acquired land, roads,
drainage works, sewerage works, supply of
drinking water, electrification, parks, etc.
are to be developed by the Authority during
the course of development. The village
development, sewerage, drainage, road,
water supply, electrification of the village
in question would also be undertaken. Out
of the estimated cost of Rs. 4546.53 lacs,
Rs. 3475.94 lacs had already been spent on
road,
sewerage,
drainage,
village
development, electricity etc. in the area.

(ix) Under the scheme of the
Development Authority, 7% of developed
plots would be allotted to the original
affected tenure holders of the village,
allotment of which was under process.

(x) The lands of Village Mirzapur
had
been
acquired
through
different
notifications and for different uses like the
Yamuna Expressway Project, land for area
under Master Plan road, area under Master
Plan green, Abadi and Abadi settlement.
Out of the total acquired area under the
notification in question, Sector 18, Sector
20, Sector 22A & Sector 22D, Sector 19
are being developed, land use for which
was residential, which included Green area,
Sector road and area under township plots,
including area under residential plots.

(xi) The acquisition of land of
Village Mirzapur for Yamuna Express Way
project has been upheld by the Apex Court
in Nand Kishore Gupta and other vs.
State of U.P. and others, wherein the
Apex Court had observed that creation of
the five zones for Industry, Residence,
Amusement etc., would be complementary
to the creation of the Expressway. It was
observed that the creation of land parcels
would give impetus to the industrial
development of the State creating more
jobs and helping the economy and thereby
helping the general people.