Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 57 of 2024 1. National Highway Authority Of India Project Implementation Unit, Raipur-I, Through Its Project Director, House No. 5196, Behind B T I College, Shankar Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (In The Order Dated 17-06-2019 Of W P C No 1866/2019, Respondent No. 2 Is Mentioned As Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Harbhajan Singh S/o Tahal Singh Aged About 74 Years R/o Moudahapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highways, New Delhi. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Competent Authority National Highway Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has observed thus: “8. It is well settled law that the 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, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations: “It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it…….” 4 8. In case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, it was held thus:- “25. …....The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein in paragraph 9 following has been laid down: “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 of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 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 a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 9. Considering the grounds raised by applicants in this review petition and taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioners failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 17.6.2019. 10. Review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Arguments
: Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 3 : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shweta Rai,Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General. 2 SB: Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, J Order On Board 10.01.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking review of the order dated 17.6.2019 passed in WPC No.1866/2019 whereby the Land Acquisition Officer concerned was directed to complete the land acquisition proceedings, subject matter of writ petition, within a period of six months from the date of order. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that this review petition is filed solely on the ground that Notification under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) was published on 4.7.2018 and the order under review is passed on 17.6.2019. Whereas, as per sub-clause (3) of Section 3D of the Act of 1956, after completion of period of one year, the entire acquisition proceeding has been lapsed. Further, on the dateof passing of order under review, respondent No.2/petitioner herein was not heard and the order was passed. Hence, there is error apparent on the face of record requiring review of the order dated 17.6.2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supported the order under review. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order which is sought to be reviewed. 5. Order is dated 17.6.2019, which is passed prior to completion of period of one year as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 3D of the Act of 1956, as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner. Thus, it is apparent that the order was passed within one year from 3 the date of issuance of Notification under Section 3 of the Act of 1956. Hence, this Court does not find any error apparent in the order as the same was not passed beyond the period of one year. 6. The order, subject matter of review petition, is not on merits of the case. No adverse order was passed against the review petitioner, but the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to conclude the land acquisition proceeding which was started within six months from the date of order. 7.