WRIT PETITION 22879 of 2018 on 27 December 2018

ORDER

Writ Petition No.22879 of 2018 was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioners after resuming the lands assigned to them for public purpose, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the Act, 2013.

2. Initially, interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 was granted. I.A.No.2 of 2018 was filed to vacate the said interim order.

3. Learned Single Judge passed a common order dated 27.12.2018 in I.A.No.2 of 2018 in W.P.No.22879 of 2018 and W.P.No22879 of 2018 and allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order is as follows:

“68. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order compensation at the above rate of Rs.17,28,066/- per acre to the petitioners for resuming their assigned lands in 2016 with interest under Section 80 of Act 30 of 2013 @ 9% p.a from the date of dispossession till date of payment; and till such payment is made, the respondents shall not allow any development activity in the said lands. The payments already made to the petitioners shall be given credit to while making the balance payment as indicated above.”

4. Since the order of the learned Judge is not complied with, petitioners filed Contempt Case No.1122 of 2020 on 18.09.2020.

After the contempt was filed, respondents, in the writ petition, filed the above review I.A.No.1 of 2019.

5. Heard Sri Sashi Bhushan Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to learned Additional Advocate General and Sri V.Vinod K.Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The main ground on which the review was filed is that the Tahsildar colluded with the petitioners and got mutated the names of the petitioners in the revenue records.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners would submit that in the counter-affidavit filed along with I.A.No.2 of 2020, the same ground was pleaded. Learned Single Judge on consideration of the said contention allowed the writ petition. The same was not disputed by learned Government Pleader.

8. When this Court enquired the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners as to initiation of any action against the Tahsildar, learned counsel, in turn, would submits that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Tahsildar.

9. A review can be maintained on three grounds, viz., (1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after

the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (2) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (3) for any other sufficient reason.

10. The word “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in the case of Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi V. Parath Nath[1] to mean a reason sufficient on grounds atleast analogous to those specified in the rule.

11. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications, minor mistakes of inconsequential import, review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and re-corrected but lies only for patent error. The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully 1 L.R.611.A.378

within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review application. As per the above said grounds, a review application is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sandur Mangenese & Iron Ores Ltd., and Others[2]. Maintainability on the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negative.

12. In view of the above expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court does not find any reasons to review the common order dated 27.12.2018 in I.A.No.2 of 2018 in W.P.No.22879 of 2018 and W.P.No.22879 of 2018.

13. Accordingly, the Review I.A.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Date : 16.06.2023 KA

2 (2013) 8 SCC 337

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Review I.A.No.1 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.22879 of 2018

Date : 16.06.2023 KA