Jharkhand High Court

Smt. Sumita Bhagat (Kujur) vs State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 10 September, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan

                                                      2025:JHHC:27467-DB

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Civil Review No. 12 of 2025
                              .........

Smt. Sumita Bhagat (Kujur), aged about 47 years, D/o Shri Jagarnath Kujur, Resident of village-Lowadih, under P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). ..... Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand-cum-Chairman Jharkhand Accelerated Road Development Company Limited having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O and P.S Dhurwa District Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having Office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi having its Office at P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

5. Circle Officer, Namkum, P.O. and P.S Namkum, District Ranchi.

6. President, Jharkhand Accelerated Road Development Company Limited, Road No. 1, Ashok Nagar, P.O and P.S Argora, District Ranchi.

..... Respondents .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv Ms. Amrita Sinha, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV .........

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

C.A.V. ON 12/08/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:10 /09/2025

The interlocutory application has been filed by the

Petitioner for condonation of delay of 42 (forty-two) days.

Neither any reply has been filed by the Respondents, nor

any serious objection has been raised at the time of

arguments. Considering the period of delay and the reasons

mentioned, the interlocutory application is allowed and the

delay is condoned.

Civil Review 12 of 2025.

2. The instant petition has been filed seeking review of

the order passed in LPA No. 485 of 2018 dated 31.08.2024,

wherein the appeal filed against the order dated 21.06.2018

passed in WP(C) 3653 of 2015 was dismissed.

Background of the Case.

3. The Petitioner claims to be the rightful owner of land

appertaining to Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 admeasuring

an area of 1.04 acres and the land appertaining to Khata

No. 178, Plot No. 32 admeasuring an area of 1.22 acres;

both plots in the village of Sarwal, Thana No. 334, Police

Station Namkum, District-Ranchi. The same was purchased

by the Petitioner vide 2 (two) sale deeds dated 27.10.2005

and 8.5.2006 and thereafter the same was also mutated in

her name.

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

4. The Petitioner's case is that though 0.31 acres of land

from Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.23 acres of land

from Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32 was acquired for which

compensation was also paid; however, the Respondent-

State illegally encroached upon an additional, 0.31 acres of

land from Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.50 acres of

land from Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32. It is pleaded that

after several representations, the revenue officers registered

a 'Measurement Case No. 13 of 2010-11', wherein it was

confirmed that construction was going on 0.62 acres in

Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.73 acres in Khata No.

178, Plot No. 32.

5. The Petitioner's submission is that once it was

established that construction was going on extra portion of

land which was acquired in Measurement Case No. 13 of

2010-11, the Petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C)

3653 of 2015, claiming compensation for the extra land

being utilized by the Respondent. The Respondent-State,

contested the writ petition by stating that the 'additional

land' was further acquired in a Land Acquisition case being

Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2010-11 and despite notice,

the compensation amount was not received by the

Petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed vide

order dated 21.6.2018, giving liberty to the Petitioner to

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

approach the competent officer and also prefer a statutory

appeal, if the situation so requires.

6. This order was assailed by filing a Letters Patent

Appeal which was registered as LPA No. 485 of 2018. The

primary contention of the Petitioner was that the Ld. Single

Judge, has failed to consider that without a notification, no

proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be

said to be valid in the eye of law. Considering the

submission of the Petitioner (Appellant therein), this Court

considered it fit to summon the entire records of the land

acquisition proceeding vide order dated 1.5.2023.

7. This Court after giving due consideration to the facts

of the case and the applicable law dismissed the appeal vide

order dated 31.08.2024. This Court, in Para-11 of its

judgement held that notification under Section 4 of the Act,

1894 was published by the Respondent-State and the same

has been brought on record of this case by way of

supplementary affidavit dated 30.6.2023 (Annexure-B). The

Court while dismissing the appeal, placed reliance on the

judgement of R.L Jain v. DDA and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 5551

of 1997), and held that even without issuance of notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, the Claimant is only

entitled to interest and the entire land acquisition process

cannot be held to be illegal.

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

Submissions of Review Petitioner & Respondent State.

8. The Petitioner has raised several grounds seeking

review of the order passed in LPA No. 485 of 2018. It has

been submitted by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that there is an

apparent error in the judgement passed by this Court as

finding of the Court that the notification under Section 4(1)

of the Act, 1894 was published in various newspapers such

as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc., is not present in the record of

the case.

The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner has further tried

to impress that the position of law with respect to Section 4

of the Act, 1894 is entirely different and any acquisition

without the notification cannot be recognized. It has been

contended by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that though the original

records were called for, the Petitioner was never given any

opportunity by this Court to satisfy itself about the

genuineness and the veracity of the records and as such the

entire decision stands vitiated on the grounds of principles

of natural justice.

9. In order to buttress his argument, the Petitioner has

placed reliance on several judgements. The Petitioner has

relied on the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through

Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

Others1 with respect to the scope of review. The case of

Shivdev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Ors2

has also been cited to show that a Court exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 can review its own order to

prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave and palpable

errors.

10. The Petitioner placing reliance on the case of

Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRS v. Motilal (Dead)

through LRS3, submits no person can be prejudiced by the

actions of a Court and if such a situation arises, then a

ground for review is made out.

Further, drawing strength from the ratio laid down in

the case of Lily Thomas and Ors v. Union of India4, it

was submitted that law is to bent to justice and if a

judgement has been rendered under an erroneous

assumption which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice,

then the Court should not refrain from reviewing such an

order.

Lastly, it has been submitted that this Court did not

grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to clarify doubts

pertaining to the veracity of the documents in the original

(2021) 13 SCC 1

(AIR 1963 SC 1909)

(2009) 14 SCC 663

(2000) 6 SCC 224

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

file which was summoned, the impugned judgment ought to

be reviewed after giving the opportunity to the Petitioner in

that respect. In this respect reliance has been placed on the

case of Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited v. Prem

Chandra Mishra and Ors.5.

11. Per contra, the Ld. State Counsel has vehemently

opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and submits that there

is no apparent error in the judgement and accordingly the

review petition has no merit and ought to be dismissed.

Discussion and Conclusion.

12. We have heard the parties at length and perused the

records of the case. The main thrust of the argument of the

Petitioner resolves around the findings returned by this

Court in para-11 of the judgement. The same is reproduced

as under for reference:-

"We have also perused the newspaper publication for notification U/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894 read with Bihar (Amendment) Act 11 of 1961, in other daily newspaper such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc which are available in the original records of the department, which were produced before us pursuant to the direction of this Court."

13. The Petitioner's contention is that she was never given

any opportunity to peruse the said documents in order to

ascertain the veracity of the same. The next contention by

the Petitioner is that the finding of this Court with respect

(2007) 14 SCC 281

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

to the mandatory nature of Section 4 of the Act, 1894 is not

in terms of the law.

14. Before dealing with this aspect of the matter, it is

important for this Court to discuss the scope of a review

petition. The scope and the contours of a review petition is

not shrouded in mystery and has been settled by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a plethora cases. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Sahu v. Vinod

Kumar Rawat6 has culled out the guiding principles of

review from all the previous judgement. The relevant portion

of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready

reference:-

"35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:

(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.

(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.

(2021) 13 SCC 1

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

(vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.

(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier."

15. This judgement has been relied upon by the Petitioner

in order to demonstrate the scope of review. However, upon

going through the entire judgement, this Court finds that

the judgement does not support the case of the Petitioner;

rather shows that it is only under very specific conditions

that a judgement can be reviewed.

In the case at hand, the Petitioner has tried to make a

ground for review on the basis of an error apparent on

record. An error which is apparent is such which does not

require the Court to enter into a long-drawn process of

reasoning as the Court while exercising review jurisdiction

cannot sit as a court of appeal and examining and/or

rehear the entire records of the case.

The aforesaid referred judgement has categorically

held that the jurisdiction to review cannot be used to

replace a view and correct a judgement. Such power is

available to correct a mistake with is apparent on record

and does not require the power of reason to be traced out.

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

More importantly, review jurisdiction cannot be used to

substitute a view as the same amount to rehearing of a case

and not mere correction of an error.

16. Now coming to the contention raised by the Petitioner,

that due opportunity was not given with respect to the issue

of the notification. This Court while dealing with the issue

of with respect to the issuance of notification under Section

4 of the Act, 1894 has held that it has gone through the

record of the case and finds that the notification was

published in several newspaper. The relevant portion of the

judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference:-

" It is further evident from the record that Notification U/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894, read with Bihar (Amendment) Act 11 of 1961, has been widely circulated through newspaper publication. [Refer Annexure-B at Page 23 & 24 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 30.6.2023 filed by DLAO, Ranchi]"

It is only after this that this Court has recorded its

finding pertaining to the other newspapers and has

recorded as under:-

"We have also perused the newspaper publication for notification U/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894 read with Bihar (Amendment) Act 11 of 1961, in other daily newspaper such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc which are available in the original records of the department, which were produced before us pursuant to the direction of this Court."

17. The contention of the Petitioner that she was not

permitted to ascertain the veracity of the original records

and hence review of the judgement is required cannot be

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

accepted owing to 2 (two) main reasons. Firstly, the

notification and paper publication made in 2 (two)

newspaper i.e. Commie Tanzeem and Faruki Tanzim are

already on the record of the case and as such even if it is

assumed that the Petitioner was not permitted to satisfy

itself with respect to the publications made in other

newspapers such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc, is of no

consequence and it shall have no effect on the outcome of

the appeal. The mandate is to publish the notification in

widely circulated newspapers, which is already complied.

For the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that

the notification was not published in newspaper such as

Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc, the outcome of the appeal would

not change as the Respondent-State has already brought on

record newspaper i.e. Commie Tanzeem and Faruki Tanzim

as part of its affidavit.

18. This submission does not hold much water in light of

the assumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 (pari passu to Section 119(e) of the Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The same is reproduced as

under for ready reference:-

(1) The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have

happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their

2025:JHHC:27467-DB

relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations.

The Court may presume that--