Smt. Yashodabai W/O Narayan Shirsat ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6054 Bom

Bombay High Court

Smt. Yashodabai W/O Narayan Shirsat ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 24 September, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:9739

                                                                                      477 caf1314.23
                                                      1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        CAF NO.1314/23 IN FA NO.111/2021
                 Smt.Yashodabai w/o Narayan Sirsat (dead) and ors
                                        ..vs..
          The State of Maharashtra, through Sub-Divisional Officer and Land
                          Acquisition Officer, Akola and anr
        ...............................................................................................
        Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
        appearances, Court orders or directions             Court's or Judge's Order
        and Registrar's orders
        ...............................................................................................

                     Shri Nihalsingh Rathod, Counsel for the Applicants.
                     Shri Amit Madiwale, AGP for NA No.1/State.
                     Shri Ashish Chaware, Counsel for NA No.2/MIDC.

                              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

CLOSED ON : 22/08/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24/09/2025

1. Heard.

2. The present application is filed by the

applicants in First Appeal No.111/2021 for review on the

ground that this court, while dismissing the appeal, held

that original claimant Narayan had filed reference under

Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (the said Act)

bearing Land Acquisition Case No.49/2000 which is

.....2/-

477 caf1314.23

decided on 28.8.2011. Once the reference has been

decided, that cannot be decided again by raising other

grounds. The appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is

barred by limitations. These observations are apparent

error on the face of record and, therefore, by way of

review, the order requires to be quashed and set aside.

3. By this application, the applicant has claimed

review and modification of judgment dated 18.4.2023 by

claiming appropriate compensation against the

acquisition of land.

4. The application is resisted by the non-

applicants on the ground that the review application itself

is not maintainable there is no error apparent on the face

of record. The issue raised by the applicants requires re-

appreciation of the evidence which is not permissible by

invoking powers under Order XLVII and Section 115 of

the CPC. The grounds raised by the applicants are not

.....3/-

477 caf1314.23

within the purview review and, therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel Shri Nihalsingh Rathod for

the applicants submitted that terminology used in Section

30 of the said Act requires the court to give decision so as

to enable the LAO to prepare the award in favour of the

rightful beneficiaries. The scheme of the Act and

importantly wording of Section 30 of the said Act itself

show that such reference is made at the stage when

enquiry under Section 11 of the said Act is over.

Therefore, once Section 30 reference is answered, the

LAO will commence proceeding under Section 12 of the

said Act. It is for this reason, that unless name of the

person to whom compensation is to be awarded is

determined, the proceeding is stalled till actual

beneficiaries are determined. Initially, there was a

dispute as to the ownership of the land, gat No.144

having survey No.178/2 and, therefore, the Collector has

.....4/-

477 caf1314.23

referred the issue to the CJSD. During the pendency of

the said reference, original owner Narayan died and the

applicants are brought on record in the said reference.

The applicants are declared to be legal heirs of Narayan.

The claimants were not aware about award. The

reference for enhancement of compensation was

presented on 9.9.2011. The claimants got knowledge

about the amount of compensation when the said amount

of compensation was disbursed to them. Thereafter, they

applied for certified copies and filed Reference on

9.9.2011. Thus, the reference is within the limitation.

Thus, the observation of this court that the reference is

not within the limitation is an apparent error on the face

of record and, therefore, the judgment and order requires

to be reviewed.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

for the applicants placed on following decisions:

.....5/-

477 caf1314.23

1. MIDC, Nagpur vs. Shaikh Khatinabai wd/o Abdul Gaffar Shaikh, reported in 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 813;

2. Vitthal Bhaskar Thakur vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr, reported in 2007(2) Mh.L.J. 707;

3. Abhay Laddulal Shah vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey and ors, reported in 2015(3) Mh.L.J. 660;

4. Mahadeo s/o Rama Vaidya and anr vs. State of Maharashtra and anr, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J.659;

5. Board of Control for Cricket, India and anr vs. Netaji Cricket Club and ors, reported in 2005 AIR (SC) 592, and

6. Sri Budhia Swain and ors vs. Gopinath Deb and ors, reported in 199 4 SCC 396.

7. Per contra, learned AGP Shri Amit Madiwale for

the State and learned counsel Shri Ashish Chaware for non-

applicant No.2 resisted the application on the ground that

.....6/-

477 caf1314.23

the applicants are asking the court to re-appreciate the

evidence, which is not permissible. There is no error

apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected.

8. Before entering into the merits it is necessary to

see the legal position in respect of review application. A

perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of a judgment

or an order could be sought :

(a) from the discovery of new and important

matters or evidence which after the exercise of

due diligence was not within the knowledge of

the applicant;

(b) such important matter or evidence could not

be produced by the applicant at the time when

the decree was passed or order made; and

(c) on account of some mistake or error

apparent on the face of the record or any other

sufficient reason.

.....7/-

477 caf1314.23

9. Thus, the power of review may be exercised on

the discovery of new and important matter or evidence

which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within

the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could

not be produced by him at the time when the order was

made. It may not be exercised on the ground that the

decision was erroneous on merits as that would be the

province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be

confused with appellate powers which may enable an

appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by

the subordinate court.

10. In the case of Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik

(Smt.) and others, 2006(4) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 14, while

considering the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with

Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is

observed and held in paragraph Nos.14 to 18 as under:

"14. In Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995)1 SCC 1780 it was held that:

"It is well settled law that the review

.....8/-

477 caf1314.23

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. But, there are definitive limits to be exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not

.....9/-

477 caf1314.23

within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit. That would be in the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of error committed by the Subordinate Court."

11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles , let us

consider the first ground of the applicants.

12. As per the contentions of the applicants, the

scheme of the Act and importantly wording of Section 30 of

the said Act show that such reference, at the stage when

enquiry under Section 11 is over, the claimants, whose

land was acquired under the said Act, acquired the

.....10/-

477 caf1314.23

knowledge when they appeared after the death of original

owner Narayan. The reference court declared legal heirs of

Narayan as owners of the property and persons interested.

The compensation was granted to them on 28.8.2011 and

they preferred reference on 9.11.2011 and, therefore, the

reference was within the limitation.

13. The First Appeal was dismissed on the ground

that the land reference filed by the claimants was not

within the limitation, which as per the applicants is

apparent error. In support of the said contention, learned

counsel for the applicants placed reliance on MIDC,

Nagpur vs. Shaikh Khatinabai wd/o Abdul Gaffar Shaikh

supra. Perusal of the said decision reveals that facts in

the said case and facts in the present case are not

identical.

Similar is the case of Vitthal Bhaskar Thakur

vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr supra as

relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants.

.....11/-

477 caf1314.23

14. In Abhay Laddulal Shah vs. Udaykumar

Radhakisan Dubey and ors the issue raised was, whether

the reference is maintainable and this court observed that

adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act can only be

challenged by preferring appeal under Section 96 of the

CPC and under Section 54 of the said Act.

15. The facts in the case of Mahadeo s/o Rama

Vaidya and anr vs. State of Maharashtra and anr supra

are also not identical.

16. Coming to the facts of the present case, it

reveals that original claimant Narayan was original

owner of gat No.144 having survey No.178/2. The said

land was granted to him vide certificate No.27/16-A( 65-

66) of Yavata dated 18.8.1966. The said land was

acquired for the purposes MIDC, Akola. The

compensation for 6 acres of land was determined @

Rs.97,002/- by the LAO, Akola by award

No.LAQ/47/Yavata/ 1991-92. However, Namdeo More

.....12/-

477 caf1314.23

and Tukaram Dhagekar claimed title in the above said

property on the basis of sale deed allegedly executed by the

original claimant. Original claimant Narayan claimed that

the said deed was bogus document and possession was

never delivered to Namdeo More and Tukaram Dhagekar.

Said Namdeo had filed RCS No.773/1995 for declaration

which was dismissed on 18.1.1995. The consolidation

officer has also declared Narayan as owner by its order

dated 18.5.1991. Thereafter, said Narayan had applied to

the LAO for the payment of compensation amount.

However, in dispute raised between Narayan and Namdev

and Tukaram, the amount was not paid to them. Therefore,

he filed Land Acquisition Case No.49/2000 wherein

Namdev and Tukaram were respondent Nos.2 and 3.

17. As respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to file

written statement, the application proceeded without

their written statements. During the pendency of the

reference, original claimant Narayan died and, therefore,

.....13/-

477 caf1314.23

his legal representatives, i.e. present applicants were

brought on record. In the said application, deceased

applicant Yashodabai adduced her evidence and

produced various documents. After considering the

evidence on record, 2nd Joint CJSD, Akola allowed the

application and declared the claimants, i.e. present

applicants, entitled to get compensation amount of

Rs.97,002/- determined by the LAO in the case

No.LAQ/47/Yavata/ 1991-92 in respect of 2 H 43R land

of gat No.144.

18. As the applicants aggrieved by the

compensation amount determined by the LAO, filed

reference under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial

Development Act, 1961 read with Section 18 of the said

Act. After recording the evidence of the applicant, the

reference court dismissed the said reference on 25.6.1990

observing that the reference is not within limitation.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the

.....14/-

477 caf1314.23

claimants preferred the appeal before this court on the

ground that the reference court has not considered that

the claimants were not aware about the award passed by

the LAO.

19. After hearing both the sides, the point framed

was that whether the reference petition filed by the

claimants is within limitation in view of the provisions of

Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development

Act and in view of Section 18 of the said Act.

20. While deciding the appeal, this court

considered that Narayan was original owner of the said

property. His land was acquired for the purpose of MIDC,

Akola and Notification under Section 32(2) of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act was published

on 13.8.1992. The award was passed on 28.3.1997.

21. After receipt of the notice, Narayan claimed

compensation. However, his claim was resisted by

Namdeo and Tukaram. Said Namdev filed RCS

.....15/-

477 caf1314.23

No.773/1985 which was dismissed on 18.5.1991. The

consolidation officer has declared Narayan as owner.

Thereafter, Narayan approached to the CJSD by filing the

reference under Section 30 of the said Act. During the

pendency of the said application, Narayan died and the

applicants are brought on record as his legal heirs. The

application bearing Land Acquisition Case No.49/2000

was decided in favour of the applicants on 12.8.2010.

Thereafter, the applicants approached to the LAO for

grant of compensation. The compensation amount was

deposited on 28.8.2011. The applicants received the

compensation amount under protest and, thereafter, filed

the reference before CJSD on 9.9.2011. The State has

contested the said reference on the ground of limitation.

Respondent No.2 also contested the reference by filing

written statement.

22. The contention of the applicants is that, they

have filed the reference after knowledge and claimant No.2

.....16/-

477 caf1314.23

Devanand filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief and

reiterated the contentions as narrated by him in the

reference petition. As per his evidence, he was not having

knowledge about the award till 2o.8.2011. The

respondents have deposited the amount on order passed in

Land Acquisition Case No.49/2000 and, thereafter, he got

knowledge. Thereafter, he filed the reference petition.

During the cross examination, he specifically admitted

that in year 1997, when notice was received by him, he

came to know about the award. He also admitted that

the reference regarding the entitlement to receive

compensation amount was decided by the court on

28.8.2011.

23. In view of the above evidence, this court, while

deciding the FA, observed in para No.21 that right of the

claimants was crystallized by the reference court on

12.8.2010. In view of Section 18 of the said Act, if the

claimants are dissatisfied and aggrieved by the

.....17/-

477 caf1314.23

compensation amount determined by the LAO, in view of

sub section (2)(a) of Section 18, if the person making

was present or represented before the Collector, at the

time when he made the award, within six weeks from the

date of the Collector's award and in view of sub section

(2)(b) states that in other cases within six weeks from

receipt of the notice from the Collector, under Section

12(2) or within six months from the date of Collector's

award, whichever period shall first expire, the claimant

has to file the reference.

24. Sub section (1) of Section 18 states who has

not accepted the award may, by written application to the

Collector, require that the matter be referred by the

Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his

objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount

of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable,

or the apportionment of the compensation among the

persons interested.

.....18/-

477 caf1314.23

25. Thus, within six weeks the claimants ought to

have filed application for compensation from the date of

order passed in Land Acquisition Case No.49/2000 filed

under Section 30 of the said Act.

26. The entitlement of the claimants was decided

on 12.8.2010. Thus, from 12.8.2010, the limitation

period for the claimants to claim compensation starts and

they have to file the reference withing six weeks from the

date of 12.8.2010.

27. The present application in LAC No.1/2013 was

filed by the claimants under Section 18 on 9.9.2011 i.e.

after period of limitation. In view of Section 34 of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, a person

aggrieved by the decision of the Collector determining

the amount of compensation may, within sixty days from

the date of such decision, files an application for

enhancement of the compensation.

.....19/-

477 caf1314.23

28. Thus, the application is not filed within

limitation in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act. The period of

limitation cannot be extended by the Collector or the

Court and, therefore, reference should essentially be filed

within prescribed period of limitation under Section

34(1) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act

and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

29. In the present case, the applicants, by way of

review application, are asking to go into the merits of the

matter. The powers of review is different from the

appellate powers.

30. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in appeal in

the case of Malleeswari vs. K.Suguna and anr decided

8.9.2015 laid down following limitations to maintain

finality of judicial decisions:

"15.1 The review proceedings are not by way

of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to

.....20/-

477 caf1314.23

the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of

CPC;

15.2 Review is not to be confused with

appellate powers, which may enable an

appellate court to correct all manner of errors

committed by the subordinate court.

15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order

47 Rule 1 of 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.

15.4 The power of review can be exercised for

the correction of a mistake, but not to

substitute a view. Such powers can be

exercised within the limits specified in the

statute governing the exercise of power.

.....21/-

477 caf1314.23

15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal

over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is

impermissible. It constitutes an exception to

the general rule that once a judgment is signed

or pronounced, it should not be altered.

Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a

miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and

palpable errors.

16. To wit, through a review application, an

apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the

court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to

explain the said error. The intimation of error at

the first blush enables the court to correct

apparent errors instead of the higher court

correcting such errors. At both the above stages,

detailed reasoning is not warranted.

17. Having noticed the distinction between the

power of review and appellate power, we restate

.....22/-

477 caf1314.23

the power and scope of review jurisdiction.

Review grounds are summed up as follows:

17.1 The ground of discovery of new and

important matter or evidence is a ground

available if it is demonstrated that, despite the

exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not

within their knowledge or could not be

produced by the party at the time, the original

decree or order was passed.

17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the

record may be invoked if there is something

more than a mere error, and it must be the one

which is manifest on the face of the record. Such

an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong

decision. An error which has to be established

by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points

where there may conceivably be two opinions

.....23/-

477 caf1314.23

can hardly be said to be an error apparent on

the face of the record.

17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient

reason' means a reason that is sufficient on

grounds at least analogous to those specified in

the other two categories".

31. Thus, while deciding the appeal, the aspect of

right of the claimants which was crystallized by the

reference court on 12.8.2010, was considered. It is also

observed that in view of Section, if the claimants are

dissatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount

determined by the LAO, sub section (2)(a) of Section 18, if

the person making was present or represented before the

Collector, at the time when he made the award, within six

weeks from the date of the Collector's award and in view

of sub section (2)(b), in other cases within six weeks

from receipt of the notice from the Collector, under

Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of

.....24/-

477 caf1314.23

Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire, the

claimant has to file the reference.

32. Sub section (1) of Section 18, any persons

interested who has not accepted the award may, by

written application to the Collector, require that the

matter be referred by the Collector for the determination

of the Court, whether his objection be to the

measurement of the land, the amount of the

compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the

apportionment of the compensation among the persons

interested.

33. Thus, within six weeks the claimants ought to

have filed application for compensation from the date of

order passed in Land Acquisition Case No.49/2000 filed

under Section 30 of the said Act.

34. Thus, from 12.8.2010, i.e. the date on which the

claimants received compensation, the limitation period for

the claimants to claim the compensation starts and they

.....25/-

477 caf1314.23

have to file reference within 6 weeks from the date of

12.8.2010.

35. By this application, the applicants are seeking

reconsideration of this observation by way of review, which

is not permissible.

36. Taking into consideration the scope of review

petition, the facts of the present case and the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court and submission made by learned

counsel for the applicants, that The term 'mistake or error

apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is

evident per se from the record of the case and does not

require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation

either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not

self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and

process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error

apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order

47 Rule 1 of the CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act.

.....26/-

477 caf1314.23

37. Thus, an order or decision or judgment cannot

be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the

ground that a different view could have been taken by the

Court on a point of a fact or law.

38. In this view of the mater, the application being

devoid of merits deserves to be rejected and the same is

rejected.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 25/09/2025 17:14:57