Page No.# 1/7 vs Kamala Phukan And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2791 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Kamala Phukan And 3 Ors on 14 August, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                  Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010280732023




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:10841

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                      Case No. : Review.Pet./138/2023

         THE SECRETARY
         GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1.

         2: THE COMMANDANT
          33RD BN ITB POLICE
          GUWAHATI
          KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM

         VERSUS

         KAMALA PHUKAN AND 3 ORS.
         W/O SRI DZEN PHUKAN,
         R/O AMERIGOG, 9TH MILE, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, REP. BY HER
         DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, SRI DEBOJIT KUMAR BARUAH, AGED
         ABOUT 62 YEARS,
         S/O LATE AJIT KUMAR BARUAH,
         R/O NILMONI PHUKAN PATH, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI- 781005,
         DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

         2:STATE OF ASSAM
          REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT (LR) DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI- 05
         ASSAM.

         3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          (PREVIOUSLY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER)
          KAMRUP (M)
          GUWAHATI- 781001
         ASSAM.

         4:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                                                                           Page No.# 2/7

             DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
             GUWAHATI- 781001
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B CHAKRAVARTY,

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the applicants : Shri B. Chakraborty, CGC

Advocate for the respondents : Shri S. Ali

Date of hearing : 14.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 14.08.2025

Judgment & Order

The instant review application has been preferred qua the judgment and order dated 31.08.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C)/2300/2022. The applicants herein were the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the said writ petition.

2. To appreciate the grounds of review, it would be convenient to recapitulate the facts projected in the writ petition and the order passed in brief.

3. The writ petition was filed with a prayer for disbursement of compensation for land acquisition which was acquired for setting up ITBP Headquarters. It was contended that there was a reference by certain similarly situated land owners in the assessment made which was registered as LA Ref. Case No. 25/2016 in which the writ petitioner was not a party. The said reference was answered by Page No.# 3/7

the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) vide judgment dated 09.08.2019 by enhancing the compensation. The parties in the said reference had thereafter filed an appeal in this Court for further enhancement which was pending. However, the writ petitioner was not paid any compensation. The writ petition was disposed of by directing that since there was no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is the recorded Pattadar who was in possession of the land in question, he would be entitled to the compensation as per the Reference Court's order as it was submitted that the petitioner is agreeable to the said amount. It is this judgment, for which the review has been sought.

4. I have heard Shri B. Chakraborty, learned CGC. I have also heard Shri S. Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party / writ petitioner.

5. Shri Chakraborty, the learned CGC for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds of review and has submitted that though the writ petitioner had claimed to have submitted application under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, Act of 2013) on 12.08.2016 and 20.11.2019, there is no acknowledgment of receipt. The application with acknowledgment is dated 11.02.2020 which is beyond the period of limitation of three months and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the Reference Court's judgment. It is contended that the said aspect was not brought to the notice of the Court. It is also contended that no application was filed under Section 73 of the Act.

6. Shri Chakraborty, the learned CGC has submitted that in case of patent error in the judgment, the power of review can be exercised and in this regard, he has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2010 (2) GLT 548 [State of Manipur Vs. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi] .

Page No.# 4/7

7. Per contra, Shri Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party / writ petitioner has submitted that for the review application to be maintainable there has to be an error apparent on the face of the records or there has to be discovery of certain things which were not within the knowledge of the review applicant even after due diligence. He has also submitted that none of the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled and the instant review is an appeal in disguise.

8. It is no longer res integra that a Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 exercises plenary jurisdiction in which the power of review is inbuilt. In this regard, one may gainfully refer to the case of MM Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666 wherein the following observations were made:

"14. The High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article

215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that regard is plenary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra a nine-Judge Bench of this Court has recognised the aforesaid superior status of the High Court as a court of plenary jurisdiction being a court of record."

Page No.# 5/7

In a subsequent case of Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Ltd., reported in (2019) 3 SCC 203, similar views were expressed.

9. At the same time, this Court is reminded that though the powers of review are available, however, the principles laid down for exercising powers of review are to be followed. The said principles are that there has to be an error apparent on the face of the records or there is discovery of relevant materials which could not be brought to the notice of this Court while the hearing was done in spite of due diligence and thirdly, if there are sufficient reasons.

10. In the instant case, a projection has been made that the application of the petitioner was time barred as the earlier two applications said to have been filed did not bear any acknowledgment of receipt.

11. The principles governing review are well settled. In the recent decision dated 18.08.2022 reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, (S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors.) a three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the relevant case laws has reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 which are as follows:

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of

review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by Page No.# 6/7

him;

(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 Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

Page No.# 7/7

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negative."

12. There is no dispute to the proposition that the powers of review can be exercised if there is a patent error in the judgment. However, in the present case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the grounds set forth would not fall within the parameters wherein a review is called for.

13. Accordingly, the instant review application is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant