Jharkhand High Court

Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad vs Chintamani Devi on 18 March, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                     Civil Review No. 104 of 2024

1. Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad, Jhumri Telaiya, PO & Ps-Jhumri Telaiya,
District-Koderma, Jharkhand
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad, Jhumri
Telaiya, PO & Ps-Jhumri Telaiya, District-Koderma, Jharkhand
                                                     ......... Petitioners
                             Versus
1. Chintamani Devi, W/o late Balakrishna Prasad, R/o Doctor Gali, PO &
PS-Jhumri Telaiya, District-Koderma
                    ......Respondent/LPA Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma,
PO, PS & District-Koderma, Jharkhand                ..... ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
                              -------
For the Petitioners      : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                           Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate
                           Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (Mines)-III
                           Mr. Faisal Alam, AC to SC (Mines)-III

                           ---------
C.A.V on 14 February, 2025
             th
                                Pronounced on 18th March, 2025

Per, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has been invoked for review of the order dated

26.06.2024 passed in L.P.A No.37 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the

co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners

herein by upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Factual Matrix of the Case:

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the instant review petition

needs to refer herein which is being referred herein.

3. The Writ Petition being W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021 has been preferred for issuance of a direction upon the respondents not to use the residential

land of the respondent/writ petitioner's land appertaining to Khata

No. 1/44, Plot No. 68/142, Mouza-Bela Tand, Old Ward No. 7, New Ward

No.14, P.S-Koderma (now Tilaiya), P.S No. 246, District-Koderma,

measuring an area of 08 Decimals (out of total area of 16 Decimals) without

lawfully acquiring the same as the said land was purchased by her husband-

Late Balkrishan Prasad by virtue of registered sale deed No. 3515 dated

05.05.1993, mutation of which was done vide order dated 04.07.1994

passed in Mutation Case No. 243(II) of 1994-95.

4. The respondent/ Review Petitioner filed counter affidavit contending

that there was a pond situated on the aforesaid land which was Gair

Majurwa land. The said pond required protection so the Nagar Panchayat

had demarcated the territory of the pond for its beautification and for the

benefit of the people residing in the locality.

5. The writ petitioner raised objection on the ground that the

demarcation was being done on his raiyati land but as per the respondent/

Review Petitioner demarcation was done on Gair Majurwa land as the

respondents were empowered under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011.

6. Further, the Additional Collector, Koderma on behalf of state also

filed counter affidavit stating that the pond is situated on the Gair Majurwa

land which needed protection and hence the said land was demarcated by

the Municipality for its beautification as well as the benefit of the people

residing in the locality. It had been contended that the Circle Officer had

issued the rent receipts without approval from Deputy Commissioner Land

Reforms and Sub-Divisional Officer as prescribed in letter no. 2861, dated

08-06-2017 issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land

Reforms, Government of Jharkhand.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on 9.09.2011 had stop the sale

and purchase of the land as well as issuance of the rent receipt for such

land. Subsequently, Notification no. 1132, dated 26.08.2015 was issued by

the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and Sale deed

executed in favour of the writ petitioner is rendered ab initio void in view

of the said notification.

8. The writ petitioner/respondent filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit

filed by the respondent/Review Petitioner and contended that the

respondent authorities did not have the power to make construction over

the raiyati land in the garb of beautification and demarcation of pond and

in support the documents of title and transfer of titles has been annexed

along with the rejoinder. It was further contended that from a mere perusal

of the measurement report submitted by the Amin as well as the report

submitted that Circle Officer, Koderma shows that the land is raiyati and

also the jamabandi was running in the name of husband of the Petitioner. It

was further stated that the writ petitioner had installed pillars on the

boundary of the land.

9. After hearing both the parties and relying on the rent receipts issued

by the Circle Officer, Koderma Sadar, the learned Single Judge of this

Court has passed the judgement in favour of the writ petitioner.

10. Thereafter the respondent/ Review Petitioner/appellant filed L. P. A.

No. 37/2024 for setting aside the order dated 19-07-2023 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3503/2021

11. The said L.P.A. No. 37/2024 was dismissed vide order dated

26.06.2024 by the Letters Patent Court upholding the order dated

19.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, in W.P.(C) No. 3503/2021.

12. The present review petition has been filed against the order dated

26.06.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 37/2024 by which the Letters Patent Court

has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge.

13. It is evident from record that earlier the writ petitioner has

approached before this Court by filing W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 for issuance

of rent receipt of the land praying therein for issuance of a direction upon

the revenue authority to issue a rent receipt pertaining to subject property

comprised under Plot No.68/142 of Khata No.1/44 in Mouza Belatand (Old

Ward No.7 corresponding new Ward No.14) within PS-Koderma, District-

Koderma.

14. In the said writ petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018, the State

authority has filed its counter-affidavit raising objection with respect to

right, title and interest of the writ petitioner over the land in question.

15. Upon such objection raised on behalf of the State authority, the

respondent/ writ petitioner has sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition

being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 with liberty to the writ petitioner to approach

the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of her title, if she

so wishes.

16. Thereafter, the writ petitioner instead of approaching the competent

Court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of her title approached the

concerned revenue authority with all relevant documents for issuance of

rent receipt and the Circle Officer, Koderma issued rent receipts in favour

of the writ petitioner from the year 1994-95 to 2022-23 on different dates.

17. The writ petitioner after withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P

W.P.(C) No.3503 of 2021 seeking therein the prayer for issuance of a

direction upon the revenue authority not to use the petitioner's land in

question without lawfully acquiring the same.

18. The State has appeared and opposed the writ petition by citing the

instance of the order passed in W.P(C)No.374 of 2018 whereby the said

writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn after title over the land in

question has been disputed by the State authority having been taken the

same stand in the counter-affidavit pleaded therein that the writ petition

being W.P(C)No.374 of 2018 was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to

the petitioner to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for

adjudication of her title, if she so wishes.

19. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition being

W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021 has passed the order for payment of compensation

to the petitioner in lieu of the utilization of the said land in terms with the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 within a period of

two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order.

20. Being aggrieved, the review petitioner herein, namely, Jhumri

Telaiya Nagar Parishad has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A

No.37 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2024 by a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court against which the present review petition has

been filed.

Argument by the learned senior counsel for the review petitioner:

21. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing for the

review petitioner-Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad has submitted that the

order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)

No.3503 of 2021 and subsequent thereto the order dated 26.06.2024 passed

by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 37 of 2024 suffers

from error apparent on the face of these orders and, as such, it need to be

reviewed.

22. In support of his contention, the following grounds have been taken

by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 26.06.2024

passed in L.P.A No.37 of 2024:

(i) The direction which has been passed by the learned Single Judge

while passing the order in writ petition being W.P(C)No.3503 of 2021

based upon the revenue receipt produced before it having issued by

the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and thereafter the learned writ

Court has passed an order directing the respondent authority, i.e.,

Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad to pay compensation for the land in

question in lieu of the utilization of the said land.

(ii) It has been contended that merely on the basis of the issuance of

the rent receipt no title will be declared and, as such, the direction

passed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 19.07.2023

passed in W.P(C)No.3503 of 2021 in absence of any proof of title

directing the Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad to make payment of

compensation in lieu of the utilization of the land in question was

absolutely incorrect reason being that it is the writ petitioner who has

sought for withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P(C) No.374 of

2018 when the question of title over the land in question has been

raised by the State authority.

(iii) It has been contended that when the dispute of title over the land

in question itself has been admitted by the respondent-writ petitioner,

then it was not available for the respondent-writ petitioner to get an

order for compensation in the writ petition where the prayer was made

for issuance of rent receipt.

(iv) Further contention has been raised that merely because the issue

with respect to the title over the land in question has been disputed by

the State authority which was accepted by the respondent-writ

petitioner and that is the reason a liberty was sought for by the writ

petitioner while withdrawing the writ petition being W.P(C) No.374

of 2018 to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for

adjudication of her title.

(v). Further, the ground has been taken that the learned Single

Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3503 of 2021 has not appreciated the fact about

the withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 on

the ground of remedy to avail by filing a suit before the competent

Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of right and title and has

passed an order directing the Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad to make

payment of compensation for the land in question in lieu of the

utilization of the said land.

(vi) The another ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge

since has not appreciated the fact about the dispute regarding the title

of the said land and even an order has been passed directing the Jhumri

Telaiya Nagar Parishad to make payment of compensation for the land

in question in lieu of the utilization of the said land, therefore, a Letters

Patent Appeal being L.P.A No.37 of 2024 was filed but the same has

also been dismissed on the ground that the writ Court was entitled to

draw an inference of valid right, title and interest of the writ petitioner

over the land in question in view of the registered sale deed dated 30 th

March 1951 and sale deed dated 05.05.1993.

(vii) It has been contended that the petitioner herself has admitted the

dispute about her title the moment she has withdrawn the writ petition

being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 after making her own submission on

the basis of the dispute raised by the State authority in its counter-

affidavit, then such direction to make payment of compensation for

the land in question in lieu of the utilization of the said land on the

basis of the inference based upon the available documents as has been

considered by the Court in passing the order in the Letters Patent

Appeal, the same cannot be said to be proper.

(viii) Another ground has been taken that, however, the jurisdiction

with respect to review is very limited, but herein the error is apparent

on the face of the order and, as such, the present review petition has

been filed.

23. The argument, therefore, has been made that, thus, it is nothing but

suppression of material facts and it is settled principle of law that the writ

Court being Court of equity has to approach by the litigant concerned with

clean hands and by disclosure of all factual aspect in order to proper

adjudication of lis.

24. The present review has been filed by justifying the stand which has

been taken by the learned counsel who had appeared before the learned

Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 37 of 2024 and in whose presence

the order was passed which is sought to be reviewed.

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner:

25. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf

of the respondent-writ petitioner on being called upon by issuance of notice

vide order dated 28.11.2024 has vehemently opposed the review petition by

taking the following grounds:

(i) That the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single

Judge in the writ petition being W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021 and the order

dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Letters Patent Court in L.P.A No.37 of

2024 suffer from no error.

(ii) It has been contended that the basis of the direction of the

learned Single Judge for payment of compensation for the land in

question is the issuance of rent receipt in favour of the writ petitioner

which shows the possession of the writ petitioner over the land in

question and, as such, if on that pretext the order has been passed the

same cannot be said to suffer from an error and further even if any

error is there the same cannot be a ground for review, rather the review

petitioner-Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad ought to have preferred an

appeal before the superior Court/Forum.

(iii) It has been contended that so far as the issue of withdrawal of

W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 is concerned, although the said writ petition

was withdrawn with liberty to file a suit before the competent Court

of civil jurisdiction, but that does not mean that the writ petitioner has

accepted the aforesaid dispute with regard to the land in question as

has been raised by the State authority.

(iv) Furthermore, after issuance of rent receipt by the Deputy

Commissioner of the concerned district, the possession since was

declared and since the writ petitioner was in peaceful possession of

the land in question and the possession was being disrupted and, as

such, if the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the

aforesaid aspect of the matter has passed the order directing the

respondent-Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad to make payment of

compensation for the land in question in lieu of the utilization of the

said land, the same cannot be said to suffer from any error.

(v) It has been contended that the learned Division Bench of this Court

while passing the order impugned in L.P.A No.37 of 2024 has

considered the said aspect of the matter and based upon the materials

available on record the inference has been derived on regarding the

right, title and interest over the land in question and has declined to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ

petition being W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021.

(vi) Further, the ground has been taken regarding the settlement of the

land in question in the year 1951 through a registered sale deed as also

the issuance of rent receipt and thereafter the execution of the sale

deed in the name of the writ petitioner sometime in the year 1993.

26. The learned counsel in such circumstances has argued that the

argument which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant/Review

Petitioner cannot be the ground to review the order passed by the learned

Division Bench in L.P.A No.37 of 2024.

27. In order to strengthen his argument, the learned counsel appearing

for the writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court passed in the case of "Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs State Tax Officer",

2024 (2) SCC 362.

28. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner based upon the

aforesaid grounds has submitted that the present review petition, therefore,

fit to be dismissed.

Analysis

29. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through

the materials as available on the record.

30. This Court before appreciation of the arguments advanced on behalf

of the parties with respect to the issue as to whether the power of review is

to be exercised in the factual background of the present case needs to be

referred to underlying principle to invoke the power of review.

31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case "Moran Mar Basselios

Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors."

[AIR 1954 SC 526], particularly, at paragraph-32 has observed as under:

"32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason."

32. Likewise, in the case of "Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of

India" (1980) Supp. SCC 562, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a

review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied that

the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result

in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations

made are as under:

"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: 'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ..... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."

33. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Kamlesh Verma v.

Mayawati" (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have

to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC.

As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has

already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge

the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The

principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized

as under:

"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 him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v.

Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto 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 re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(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 negatived."

34. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is

to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the face of the order or the

factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in

spite of the due diligence having been taken in the matter of making

available the factual aspect of the relevant documents.

35. The position of law is well settled, as would appear from the reference

of the judgment made hereinabove that the review of the judgment can only

be made if the new fact has come which could not have been brought to the

notice of the Court in spite of the due diligence, as has been held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in "Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v.

Most Rev. Mar Poulose" (supra).

36. Further, the law is well settled that a review petition, has a limited

purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise", as has been

settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Parsion Devi v. Sumitri

Devi" (1997) 8 SCC 715, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the

aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:

9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit 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"."

37. Similarly, in "S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan and

Others" 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as

under:

15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order.

It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which thecontroversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:

"(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere

looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."

38. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is

now adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case.

39. The undisputed fact which revealed herein is that the writ petitioner

has preferred a writ petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 praying therein

for issuance of a direction upon the revenue authority to issue a rent receipt

pertaining to subject property comprised under Plot No.68/142 of Khata

No.1/44 in Mouza Belatand (Old Ward No.7 corresponding new Ward

No.14) within PS-Koderma, District-Koderma.

40. The State has filed counter-affidavit wherein at paragraph no. 10 the

title over the land in question has been disputed by taking a stand therein

that the land in question is in the nature of Gair-Mazarua.

41. It is evident from the said order that the learned counsel appearing

for the writ petitioner has admitted that since the issue of title of the land in

question has been raised by the State authority in its counter-affidavit,

therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to

approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication

of his title.

42. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner has allowed the writ petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 to be

withdrawn and, accordingly, has passed order of dismissal of the writ

petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the

competent Court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of its title, if she so

wishes. For ready reference the order dated 27.06.2019 passed in W.P(C)

No.374 of 2018 is being quoted hereinbelow:

"This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the respondent no.4 to issue rent receipts of the land belonging to the petitioner pertaining to Khata No.1/44, Plot No.68/142 measuring an area of 8 decimals of land belong to village Belatand, P.S. Koderma (now within Telaiya Police Station) Thana No.246, district Hazaribagh (now Koderma).

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein at paragraph 10 the title over the land of the petitioner has been disputed by taking stand therein that the land is Gair-Mazarua land of the State Government.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the dispute has been raised by the State in the counter affidavit, therefore he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of his title.

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of his title, if she so wishes."

43. Subsequent thereto, a writ petition has been filed being W.P(C)

No.3503 of 2021 for issuance of a direction upon the respondents not to use

the land in question without lawfully acquiring the same as the said land

was purchased by the petitioner's husband, namely, late Balkrishan Prasad

by virtue of registered sale deed dated 05.05.1993.

44. The said writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge in

favour of the writ petitioner directing the respondent-Jhumri Telaiya Nagar

Parishad to determine and pay compensation to the petitioner for the said

land in terms with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act,

2013 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of

a copy of that order.

45. The basis of the argument as has been advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the review petitioner/appellant is that the learned

Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition being W.P(C) No.3503 of

2021 has not given a finding with respect to the admitted fact of the dispute

of title over the land in question, based upon that, the writ petition being

W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 was withdrawn vide order dated 27.06.2019.

46. This Court in order to appreciate the said argument has gone through

the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ

petition being W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021.

47. It is evident therefrom that the reference of the writ petition being

W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 has been referred in paragraph no.3 of the said

judgment. It further appears that the learned Single Juge has also taken note

therein regarding the withdrawal of the writ petition on the issue of dispute

having been raised over the title of the land in question. The contention was

raised on behalf of the writ petitioner as has been taken note in paragraph

no.3 thereof which is quoted as under:

"Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 as well as the Circle Officer, Koderma with all the relevant documents. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Koderma issued rent receipts from the year 1994-95 to 2022-23 on different dates."

48. The ground which has been taken on behalf of the respondent-Jhumri

Telaiya Nagar Parishad is that how the ground for issuance of rent receipt

issued by the revenue authority in pursuance of the order passed in W.P(C)

No.374 of 2018 can be said to be proper when the writ petitioner while

withdrawing the said writ petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 was

sought for liberty to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for

adjudication of her title, if she so wishes.

49. The law is well settled that issuance of rent receipt does not create

title over the land as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of K. Moosa Haji's Widow v. Executive Officer, Sree Lakshmi Narasimha

Temple, (1996) 9 SCC 49 , for ready reference the relevant paragraph of

the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:

3. -------- When we pointedly asked the counsel to point out the source for the right, the appellant fell upon Ex. B-8, rent receipt, as source of title. The appellant does not get any legal title based on it since Ex. B-8 is only a rent receipt which does not confer any title. There is no other document evidencing the title of the land on which the building came to be constructed in excess of 3 1/2 cents and the purchase certificate which covers 10 3/10 cents. The appellants cannot have any right more than what was conferred under Ex. A-1 which specifically mentions 3 1/2 cents and the purchase certificate which covers 10 3/10 cents including 3 1/2 cents. Under those circumstances, the decree of the High Court does not warrant interference, except for the exclusion of total area of 10 3/10 cents of land covered by the purchase certificate from the decree.

50. The petitioner after taking liberty to approach the competent Court

of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of her title but instead of filing suit, the

revenue authority had been approached for the purpose of rent receipt. The

Circle Officer, Koderma issued rent receipts from the year 1994-95 to

2022-23 on different dates as would be evident from paragraph no.3 of the

order dated 19.07.2023 passed in W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021, which is being

quoted hereinbelow:

"3. In such circumstance, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 374 of 2018 before this Court for issuance of rent receipt with respect to the said land. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.06.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to

approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction for adjudication of her title, if she so wishes. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 as well as the Circle Officer, Koderma with all the relevant documents. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Koderma issued rent receipts from the year 1994-95 to 2022-23 on different dates."

51. The respondent-Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad had appeared in the

said writ petition and made objection by citing the reference of the order

dated 27.06.2019 passed in W.P(C) No.374 of 2018. The learned Single

Judge although has taken note with respect to the reference of the order

dated 27.06.2019 passed in W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 but has recorded in the

finding part of the said order that the Circle Officer, in the light of the order

dated 27.06.2019 passed in W.P(C) No.374 of 2018, has issued rent receipt

in favour of the petitioner from the year 1994-95 to 2022-23 on different

dates and by taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts, the learned

Single Judge came to the conclusion that the possession of the writ

petitioner/her husband over the said land has been duly acknowledged by

the concerned authority.

52. This Court needs to refer herein that the order dated 27.06.2019

passed in W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 does not speaks about the issuance of

rent receipt, rather, although the prayer was there for issuance of rent

receipt and the issue of title was agitated by the State in its counter-

affidavit, then the writ petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 was

withdrawn with liberty to approach before the competent Court of civil

jurisdiction for adjudication of title, if she so wishes.

53. The observation made in the said writ petition while granting liberty

to the writ petitioner was to approach before the competent Court of civil

jurisdiction for adjudication of her title and there was no observation for

the revenue authority. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned

Single Judge while passing the order in W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021 has not

fully appreciated the purport/intent of the prayer of withdrawal of the writ

petitioner.

54. The learned Single Judge, at paragraph no.15 in W.P(C) No.3503 of

2021, has passed direction to the respondent-Jhumri Telaiya Nagar

Parishad to determine and pay compensation to the petitioner for the land

in question in terms with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement)

Act, 2013 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production

of a copy of that order.

55. The said order has been challenged by the respondent-Jhumri Telaiya

Nagar Parishad by filing L.P.A No.37 of 2024 which was dismissed by the

Letters Patent Court. The main ground agitated on behalf of the respondent-

Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad was the implication of the order dated

27.06.2019 passed in W.P(C) No.374 of 2018.

56. The learned Division Bench has declined to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.3503 of 2021 by

recording the finding with respect to implication of the order passed in

W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 to the effect that no doubt the learned counsel for

the writ petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition with liberty to approach

before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of her title,

but then before any adjudication by the civil Court on this issue the

authority has no right to interfere with the right, title and interest of the writ

petitioner over the land in question.

57. The order sought to be reviewed has again came to the conclusion by

making reference of the nature of land as recorded in the revenue records

which have been shown to be Gair-Mazarua which has no bearing of the

possession of the writ petitioner over the land in question.

58. The reference of execution of the sale deed dated 30.03.1951 has

been said to be settled by the ex-landlord. It has also been referred herein

that the respondent-Jhumri Telaiya Nagar Parishad does not dispute that the

subject property is of the ex-landlord and in view thereof if the entries have

been made in the revenue record in the name of the writ petitioner the order

for payment of compensation cannot be said to be valid.

59. The question which has been raised that when the fact based upon

that the learned Division Bench has come to the conclusion regarding the

registered sale deed dated 30.03.1951 on the basis of which entries were

made in the revenue record, all such facts have been disputed by the State

by filing the counter-affidavit in W.P(C) No.374 of 2018, and if that was

the reason for withdrawal of W.P(C) No.374 of 2018, then it was not

available for the learned Division Bench to come to a conclusion with

respect to title of the land in question while passing the order of dismissal

of L.P.A No.37 of 2024 by relying upon the said document reason being

that the said document was required to be appreciated by the appropriate

Forum for proper adjudication for which the writ petitioner has taken

liberty to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

60. This Court before appreciation of the arguments advanced on behalf

of the parties with respect to the issue as to whether the power of review is

to be exercised in the factual background of the present case needs to be

reiterated underlying principle to invoke the power or review.

61. It is settled position of law that while power of review may be

inherent in the High Court to review its own order passed in a writ petition,

the same has to be exercised on well-recognized and established grounds

on which judicial orders are reviewed. For example, the power may be

exercised on the discovery of some new and important matter or evidence

which was not within the knowledge of the parties seeking review despite

due exercise of diligence when the order was made.

62. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some error

apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous thereto. These are

all grounds which find mention in various judicial pronouncements right

from the earliest time as well as in the Rules of Order 47 of the Civil

Procedure Code as permissible grounds of review.

63. 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 CPC.

64. 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.

65. In the very recent judgment in the case of "Sanjay Kumar Agarwal

Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.", (supra) as also relied by the learned

counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order

47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the proposition has been laid down to entertain the

review, as has been held at paragraph 16.1 to 16.7 which reads as under:-

"16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. 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 record e justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".

16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.--"

66. This Court is now revisiting to examine the factual aspect as to

whether the aspect as available in the present case is coming under the fold

of the error apparent available on the face of the order dated 26.06.2024

passed by the learned Division Bench in L.P.A No.37 of 2024 and the

ground which has been agitated is available to exercise the power of review.

67. The learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3503 of 2021 though has

given its finding at paragraph no. 15 with respect to withdrawal of the writ

petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018, but he has not appreciated the fact

of liberty being granted to the writ petitioner in withdrawing the writ

petition being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018. The aforesaid aspect of the matter

ought to have been considered by the learned Division Bench of this Court

while passing the order in L.P.A No.37 of 2024. The reason is that when

the petitioner herself has admitted the dispute of right, title and interest over

the land in question and for that reason she has withdrawn the writ petition

being W.P(C) No.374 of 2018 with liberty to approach the competent Court

of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of her title, but instead thereof she

approached the revenue authority for issuance of rent receipt who issued

the rent receipts from the year 1994-95 to 2022-23 on different dates in

favour of the writ petitioner.

68. The learned Division Bench has also accepted the aforesaid

documents including the registered sale deed dated 30.03.1951 which has

been disputed by the State authority in its counter-affidavit filed in W.P(C)

No.374 of 2018 which led the writ petitioner to withdraw the said writ

petition with liberty to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction

for adjudication of her title. Meaning thereby, writ petitioner herself has

admitted the disputed title over the land in question and based upon that

she had withdrawn the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) 374 of 2018,

therefore, it is not available to writ petitioner to make out a case for

entitlement of compensation on the basis of registered sale deed dated

30.03.1951 followed by the rent receipts.

69. The aforesaid admitted fact of the matter having not properly been

considered and, therefore, according to our considered view, error apparent

on the face of the order dated 26.06.2024 passed in L.P.A No.37 of 2024.

70. Hence, the fact of the present case is coming under the fold of the

jurisdiction of review.

71. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order dated 26.06.2024

passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.37 of 2024

is required to be reviewed, accordingly, reviewed.

72. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the order

dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learned Division Bench in L.P.A No.37 of

2024 is hereby recalled.