High Court
Facts
( 1 ) ra3.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADREVIEW APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2025IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9228 OF 2023Godawari Marathwada Industrial Development..ApplicantCorporation, Aurangabad.VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and Others..RespondentsMr. R.N. Dhorde, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. R.C. Patil, Advocate for theapplicant.Mr. P.P. Dawalkar, AGP for the respondent-State.Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. A.V. Indrale Patil a/w. Mr.A.D.Khedkar, Advocate for the respondents/petitioners in WP.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:06.03.2025PRONOUNCED ON:06.05.2025ORDER :-01.This application is filed seeking review of the order passed bythis Court dated 21.10.2024, in Writ Petition No.9228 of 2023. ThisCourt by the said order allowed the Writ Petition filed by the presentrespondents/original claimants in land acquisition reference. The WritPetition was filed challenging an order passed by the learned LandAcquisition Officer, Ahmadpur, Dist. Latur, in Case No. San.Kra.2022/LA/CR-18 dated 04.05.2023. It was grievance of the respondentsthat inspite of Hon’ble Apex Court directing the Authorities to calculate ( 2 ) ra3.25the amount of compensation along with interest and to take independentdecision, it was made clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the order thatwas impugned in the SLP will not stand in the way of SLAO while decidingthe matter. It was the case of the petitioners that inspite of this order,the learned SLAO, on extraneous considerations withheld the amount ofthe claimants. In the said Writ Petition, this Court quashed the orderpassed by the SLAO by defreezing the account with condition that thepetitioner shall keep 25% of the amount in the fixed deposit till furtherorders from the Competent Authority. The applicant/respondent in theWrit Petition, therefore, now approached this Court. 02.Mr. Dhorde, learned Sr. Advocate for the applicantvehemently argued that though the First Appeals were allowed by thisCourt, challenging the references, no decree was prepared. The decreewas not signed by both the Advocates. Without signature of both theAdvocates, the decree could not have become final. When the decreewas not final, there was no question of petitioner’s withdrawing amount,without specific orders from this Court. In view of Chapter II Rule 3 (i)to (v) of the CPC, the decree is still not drawn. By order dated04.07.2020, the Authorities directly deposited the amount into theaccounts of the petitioners only on receiving telephonic information from ( 3 ) ra3.25the office of this Court. He criticizes this aspect, saying that it is notclear as to who made telephone call informing the order passed by thisCourt. The Authorities were not expected to merely act on telephoniccommunication. The action of the Authorities, thus, appears to besuspicious.03.He further submits that by letter dated 22.10.2022,addressed to the SDO and Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmadpur, the SDO,Minor Irrigation, Ahmadpur had given explanation to the points raised bythe Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahmedpur, after judgment of this Court. Arepresentation is sent by the claimants and their Advocate requesting notto take any coercive action against the claimants. This representationwas in respect of assessment of interest on the compensation awardedby the High Court under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and inview of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 13821 of2022. He submits that before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the position asregards the interest that it would stop running from the moment theamount is deposited in the Court is not pointed out. On pointing out this,he submits that the amount thus withdrawn without there being anyformal decree drawn pursuant to the decision in the First Appeal by thisCourt. The amount is wrongly withdrawn in excess. The amount was ( 4 ) ra3.25already deposited with interest. Till now, there is no application fordrawing formal decree. The withdrawal of amount is, therefore, illegal.04.Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Sapkal for the respondentsvehemently submits that the points which are being argued were noturged before this Court while deciding the Writ Petition. In the WritPetition only question that was required to be dealt with was the orderpassed by the SLAO of freezing the accounts and not allowing thepetitioners to withdraw the amount. From the order of the Hon’ble ApexCourt, it is clear that the question that was to be considered was only ofcalculations and except that the Authorities were not to consider anyother aspect. He further submits that no error apparent on the face ofrecord is pointed out in the review application. The review application isthus not maintainable. He relies on the judgments in the case of TamilNadu Electricity Board Vs. N. Raju Reddiar reported in 1997 AIR(SC) 1005 and in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 255. Helastly submits that now the order is already complied with. Whatever isargued now in this Court was never pointed out to the Hon’ble ApexCourt. If at all the applicants are aggrieved by the order sought to bereviewed, they could have challenged the said order before the Hon’ble ( 5 ) ra3.25Apex Court.05.In the Writ Petition, this Court was dealing with the orderpassed by the learned SLAO, thereby the SLAO had defreezed theaccounts. The petitioners had come to this Court pointing out the orderpassed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 13821 of 2022. The orderof the Apex Court was considered, which is reproduced below :-“Heard learned counsel for the parties.The only issue which arises for consideration in this petition aboutthe calculation of the interest to which the claimants are entitled for theperiod when the amount was lying in the deposit in the High Court duringthe pendency of the petition.A simple process of calculation has unnecessarily been draggedbefore this Court. In the circumstances, we deem it necessary and in theinterest of justice, to permit the parties to approach the SLAO along withtheir calculation of the amount payable requiring the SLAO to take thedecision on the same in accordance with law.Learned counsel for the respondents states that he would beentitled to interest on the excess amount which was withdrawn by thepetitioners almost two years back. It shall be open for the parties to raiseall such pleas before the SLAO and the same shall be decided inaccordance with law and the existing facts. In case parties are dissatisfiedwith calculation arrived at by the SLAO it shall be open to them toapproach the higher forum in accordance with the provisions in law.The impugned order passed by the High Court shall not stand inthe way of SLAO in deciding the matter, as directed above. He shall takeindependent decision in accordance with law without being influenced byany observation made by the High Court.The SLAO shall make endeavour to take the decision in the matteras expeditiously as possible.The special leave petition is disposed of accordinglyPending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
Legal Reasoning
( 7 ) ra3.25Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others, this Court observed that reviewproceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of OrderXLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the reviewapplication has already been dealt with and answered, parties are notentitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternativeview is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction weresuccinctly summarized in the captioned case as below:"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of revieware maintainable as stipulated by the statute:20.1. When the review will be maintainable:(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidencewhich, after the exercise of due diligence, was not withinknowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced byhim;(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;(iii) Any other sufficient reason.The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in ChajjuRam Vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar BasseliosCatholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasium & Ors. to mean "areason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in therule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India Vs.Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.20.2 When the review will not be maintainable: -(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough toreopen concluded adjudications.(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential Import.(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the originalhearing of the case.(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifeston the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results inmiscarriage of justice.(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby anerroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only forpatent error.(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be aground for review. ( 8 ) ra3.25(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be anerror which has to be fished out and searched.(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within thedomain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to beadvanced in the review petition.(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at thetime of arguing the main matter had been negatived."08.Keeping Para 26 of the reported judgment in mind, this Courthas to consider whether any case is made out in the application showingany error apparent on the face of record. While arguing the reviewapplication, what is mainly argued is that the amount is directed to bedisbursed by defreezing the account, as per the direction of the Hon’bleApex Court. The scope of the Writ Petition was only to consider thataspect. Nothing was argued about drawing of formal decree by thisCourt. The Appellate Side Rules for that purpose were never arguedbefore this Court. Neither it was argued before the Hon’ble Apex Court.Now taking hyper-technical approach that too in the Review Application,this Court feels is not permissible. In para 26 of the said judgment, theHon’ble Apex Court considered the principles from the judgment in thecase of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320.09.While parting with the review, this Court needs to observethat this Review Application is filed not by the Advocate appeared in the ( 9 ) ra3.25Writ Petition for the present applicants, but is filed by another Advocate.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Tamil NaduElectricity Board [supra] has deprecated the practice of filingapplication by another Advocate long back, by dismissing the applicationby imposing costs. In the present case also the Review Application isfiled by an Advocate, whereas in the Writ Petition, this applicant wasrepresented by some other Advocate. For this reason also, this ReviewApplication need not be entertained.10.For the reasons discussed above and as this Court does notfind any error apparent on the face of record, this Court is of the firmview that the Review Application deserves to be dismissed. Hence, theReview Application is dismissed.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/apr25/ra3.25
Arguments
( 6 ) ra3.25.In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, thisCourt held that when the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed the SLAO onlyto make the calculations and to disburse the amount, in such casewhether the SLAO was justified in passing the order impugned in WritPetition.06.The scope of the Writ Petition was thus very limited that wasto see the order passed by the SLAO in the light of the order passed bythe Hon’ble Apex Court, whatever is now sought to be argued of drawingof decree etc. was never argued before the Hon’ble Apex Court nor it wasargued before this Court in Writ Petition. By way of this ReviewApplication, this Court clearly finds that the applicant is now trying toenlarge the scope of the Writ Petition.07.Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Sapkal rightly relied upon judgmentin the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy [Supra]. The Hon’ble ApexCourt considered the scope of the review. It also distinguished theerroneous decision from the error apparent on the face of record. Para26 of the said judgment reads as under :-“26.After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in