Karnataka High Court
Shantagouda vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 4 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REVIEW PETITION NO.200056/2021
IN
MFA NO.30641/2012 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Shantagouda S/o Siddangouda Patil,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Ronihal village, Tq. Basavan Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapur-586 210.
... Review Petitioner
(By Sri S.V. Biradar, Advocate for
Sri.B.M.Angadi, Advocate)
AND:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Krishna Project Almatti,
Tq: Basavan Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapur-586 201.
... Respondent
***
This review petition is filed under Section 47 Rule 1 R/w
Sec.114 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the order
passed by this Court in MFA No.30641/2012 dated 04.07.2016 and
to modify the compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge,
2
Basavan Bagewadi in LAC No.42/2004 dated 15.09.2010 by fixing
the market value at the rate of Rs.8,26,666-40 ps. per acre for the
land bearing Sy.No.302/2 measuring 4 acres - 38 guntas of
Ronihal village, Tq. Basavan Bagewadi, Dist: Vijayapur along with
all statutory benefits as claimed by the review petitioner.
This petition coming on for orders this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., made the following:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent
of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The review petitioner seeks to challenge the
impugned order dated 04.07.2016 passed by this Court in
MFA No.30641/2012, whereby the appeal filed by the
petitioner/claimant in relation to reduction towards
developmental expenses was partly allowed.
3. Heard Sri. S.V. Biradar, Advocate for
Sri. B.M. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the material on record including the impugned
judgment.
4. The land loser filed the aforesaid MFA under
Section 54 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking to set
aside the order of the Reference Court in LAC No.42/2004,
wherein the Reference Court had awarded a sum of
Rs.2,48,000/- per acre and had applied deduction of 70%
towards the developmental charges. The award directing
deduction at the rate of 70% towards developmental charges
on the compensation amount per acre was sought to be
challenged in the appeal.
5. This Court, considering the rival contentions of
the parties, reduced the deduction awarded by the Reference
Court towards developmental expenses to 40% as against
70% deducted by the Reference Court and accordingly,
allowed the appeal filed by the land loser in part.
6. The present review petition is filed under Order
XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, contending that any deduction towards
the developmental expenses in the compensation amount
would be detrimental to the interest of land losers. Order XLVII
Rule 1 of CPC contemplates as under:
1. Application for review of judgment.--
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal
has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a
Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at
the time when the decree was passed or order
made, or on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a
review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of
judgment to the Court which passed the decree
or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a
decree or order may apply for a review of
judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an
appeal by some other party except where the
ground of such appeal is common to the
applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the Appellate
Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
1[Explanation.--The fact that the decision on a
question of law on which the judgment of the
Court is based has been reversed or modified
by the subsequent decision of a superior Court
in any other case, shall not be a ground for the
review of such judgment.]
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja
V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995
SC 455 at para 8, held as under:
8. It is well settled that the review
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. In connection
with the limitation of the powers of the Court
under Order 47, 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, AIR 1979 SC 1047,
speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has
made the following pertinent observations:
(para 3):
"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 the exercise of the power of
review. 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 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 merits. That would be 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 errors committed by the
subordinate court."
Now it is also to be kept in view that in the
impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
High Court has clearly observed that they were
entertaining the review petition only on the
ground of error apparent on the face of the
record and not on any other ground. So far as
that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in
view that an error apparent 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 points where there may
conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully
refer to the observations of this Court in the
case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC
137, wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for
the Court has made the following observations
in connection with an error apparent on the
face of the record:
"An error which has to be established by a long
drawn process of reasoning on points where
there may conceivably be two opinions can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the
face of the record. Where an alleged error is far
from self-evident and if it can be established, it
has to be established, by lengthy and
complicated arguments, such an error cannot
be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the
rule governing the powers of the superior court
to issue such a writ."
8. On plain reading of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC
and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Meera Bhanja supra, the power to review is available
only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record
and not then erroneous decision. The power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC may be opened inter alia only if there
is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record and
a review application cannot be held to be an appeal in
disguise.
9. Looking into the judgment of this Court, there is
no error apparent on the face of the record.
10. In the light of this settled proposition, we are of
the considered opinion that the review petition is not within the
scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Accordingly,
the review petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of
merits.
11. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The review petition is dismissed.
ii) The impugned judgment dated 04.07.2016
passed by this Court in MFA No.30641/2012 is
hereby confirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
iv) In view of dismissal of the review petition,
I.A.1/2021 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
