RP-48-2017. Case: Bhagwansingh Vs National Hydro Development Corporation. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberRP-48-2017
JudgesS.C. Sharma, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order II Rule 2; Order VII Rule 7; Order XLI Rules 1, 33; Order XLVII Rules 1, 47; Sections 113, 114; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 22(3)(f), 48(3), 48(2)
Judgement DateFebruary 01, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Judgment:

S.C. Sharma, J.

1. Parties through their counsel.

2. This Court in R.P. No. 46/2017 has passed the following order.

"R.P. No. 46/2017

30.01.2017

Parties through their counsel.

Heard on application for condonation of delay.

After hearing Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel the delay stands condoned.

Matter is heard finally with the consent of the parties.

Present review petition has been filed for reviewing the order passed by this court in W.P. No. 3101/2016 (Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer & two others Vs. Bhagatsingh S/o Shri Gulabsingh).

Learned counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the Collector was not heard while deciding the main writ petition.

There is no grievance raised by the respondent/State or by the Collector that they were not heard and, therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner is of no use. The other ground raised by the learned counsel is that Section 48(2) and 48 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been followed while passing the order.

This Court has decided the writ petition along with other connected writ petitions and if the plea of the applicant is accepted, even though the State Government has not taken possession of the land in question and even though the State Government does not want to acquire the land in question, will have to pay the compensation to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the petitioner is in possession and he is cultivating the land in question and residing in the house. The State Government has not taken possession of any house or land, therefore, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner.

The order passed by this Court on 21.11.2016 in W.P. No. 3101/2016 is based upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another, reported in 2011 (7) SCC, 639 and there is no error on the face of the record warranting review by this Court.

The Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78 in paragraph 13 and 20 has held as under:-

13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. held as follows: (SCR p. 186)

"[T]here is a distinction 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT