The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 58 of 2020 1. Mahendra Ram, aged about 41 years, son of Late Rathera Ram, resident of village- Parsabera, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag 2. Binod Rajak, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Chandar Rajak, resident of village- Banji, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag 3. Kameshwar Mahto, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Dina Mahto, resident of village- Duni, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag 4. Jagjeevan Ram, aged about 41 years, son of Late Banshi Ram, resident of village- Hesagarha, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag 5. Manraj Ram, aged about 29 years, son of Late Banshi Ram, resident of village- Balsagra, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag 6. Bhagi Nath Mahto, aged about 51 years, son of Diga Mahto, resident of village- Suji, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi O.P. - Padma, Dist.- Hazaribag 7. Md. Tayab Ali, aged about 56 years, son of Md. Wahid Ali, resident of village- Bhathibha, P.O.- Daru, P.S.- Muffasil Dist.- Hazaribag 8. Bhupendra Das Gupta @ Bhupendra Gupta, aged about 53 years, son of Narsingh Das Gupta, resident of Boddom Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribag 9. Kajaru Ram @ Kajaru Ravidas, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Lakhan Ram, resident of village- Jarba, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag 10. Gopal Ram, aged about 36 years, son of Kuleshwar Ram, resident of village- Mandu, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag ...... Petitioners Versus 1. Chairman –cum- Managing Director, Tata Steel Limited, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Dist.- East Singhbhum 2. General Manager, Tata Steel Ltd., Ghatotand, P.O.- Ghato, P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribag ….. ….. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in Civil Review no. 33 of 2023 dated 30.11.2023 in the case of Subhash Chandra Mehta vs. TISCO group of Colliery, Jamadrba submits that it is a well settled proposition of law that the power of review 3 Civil Review No. 58 of 2020 can be invoked only for the errors apparent on the face of the record and if the decision is erroneous, the same can be corrected by a higher court upon preferring appeal or revision but not by exercising the review jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Division bench in that case has relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034 , para 31 of which reads as under :- “31. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule” (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram17 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius : 1955 SCR 520).” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now coming to the facts of this case, it is not the case of the petitioner that there is any mistake or error in apparent on the face of the record but the contention of the petitioner, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment can only be detected by a process of reasoning; which is needless to mention is not within the scope of review, permissible in law. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any new or important evidence has emerged of pronouncement of the judgment sought to be reviewed by the petitioner. 10. Because of the discussions made above this court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners cannot put forth any 4 Civil Review No. 58 of 2020 ground under which a judgment can be reviewed. Therefore, this Court do not find any merit in this civil review application. Accordingly, this civil review application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 9th August, 2024 Smita /AFR 5 Civil Review No. 58 of 2020
Arguments
For the Petitioners :Mr. A.K.Sahani Adv. For the O.Ps :Mr. Gunendra Mohan Mishra, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 1 Civil Review No. 58 of 2020 2. This Civil Review has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC with a prayer to review the judgment dated 01.07.2020 passed by this court in F.A. No. 29 of 2009 whereby and where under this Court has dismissed the F.A. No. 29 of 2009 and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the review petitioner filed the said F.A. No. 29 of 2009 against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 passed in Title Suit no. 82 of 2007 passed by learned Sub-Judge, I, Hazaribagh whereby and where under, learned Sub-Judge, I, Hazaribagh has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration of title over the suit land along with costs and other reliefs. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff after settlement re-claimed the suit land. The further case of the plaintiff is that the forest settlement officer has released the suit land in favour of the plaintiff vide case no. 335 of 1963-64 vide the order dated 16.12.1964. The defendants in their written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit and denied the averment made in the plaint. Learned trial court after considered the evidence in the record, to the effect that, the Government was not a party to the proceeding, before the Forest Settlement Officer and also considering the settled principle of law that, revenue receipts are not document of title and the Hukumnama is not a registered document; as also the admitted case of the plaintiff that the suit land is a gairmazurwa land. The learned trial court also considered that the suit land is entitled to be vested with the Government and from the documents proved by the defendant, it is established that the State Government has given required permission and sanction to the defendant company to use the suit land for mining purpose, dismissed the suit. 2 Civil Review No. 58 of 2020 5. On the basis of the materials in the record and pleading of the parties, this court formulated the following two points for determination:- (i) Whether Hukumnama is a valid title document and the learned trial court erred by not considering the same to declare that the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land ? (ii) Whether learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit for the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their title ? 6. This court after considering the evidence in the record and relaying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri S. Sita Maharani and others v. Chhedi Mahto and Others reported in AIR 1955 SC 328; answered the first Point for determination in the negative. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, this court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and came to the conclusion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the settled principle of law that Sada Hukumnama of the year 1934 ,( Ext. 9), having been marked without any objection of the defendant, the same is a piece of evidence and the same can be relied upon at least for collateral purposes and it has evidentiary value which suggests the settlement of the lands under the suit of the plaintiff. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 67 and 68 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act,1908 permits the settlees to convert the settled land to cultivable land. It is next submitted that the defendant has failed to established the suit land was acquired by the State Government, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Civil Review be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment