Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs Decd. Bhanwarsingh Through Lrs. Ishwar ... on 22 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 308 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. MADANLAL S/O SHRI SIDDHULAL JAISWAL,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
BAIRAGARH, TEHSIL DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE).
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1])
REVIEW PETITION No. 309 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
2
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
PROJECT DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. BRIJBAHADUR SINGH S/O MANOHAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, VILLAGE BAIRAGARH, TEHSIL
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
BANGLOW
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1]
REVIEW PETITION No. 310 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
PROJECT DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION, UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. GULJAR SHAH S/O PIRASHAH FAKIR, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O VILLAGE HAWANKHEDI TEHSIL DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
3
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRIBUNAL COLLECTOR OFFICER DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1]
REVIEW PETITION No. 311 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
PROJECT DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. DECEASED BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS.
ISHWAR SINGH S/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BIRAGARH, TEHSIL AND DISTT. DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DECEASED BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS.
USHA D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 44
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
BAIRAGARH, TEH. AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DECEASED BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS.
SUPAL D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
BAIRAGARH, TEH. AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DECEASED BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS.
ASHA D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
BAIRAGARH, TEH. AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
4
5. DECEASED BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS.
RAJPAL S/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
BAIRAGARH, TEH. AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 312 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. SAHIDA BEE W/O BABU SHAH, AGED ABOUT 60
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
HAWANKHEDI DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRIBUNAL
COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
5
(RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 313 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
PROJECT DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
((SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. SWYAMVARLAL S/O PARASRAM, AGED ABOUT 64
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILL.
BANGAR, TEHSIL DEWAS, DISTRICT DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 314 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
((SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
6
1. KSHIPRA REALCON L.L.P. THROUGH PARTNER
VIJAY S/O ABHAY CHAJLANI, AGED ABOUT 61
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 582 MG
ROAD LABH GANGA BUILDING DISTT.INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM , LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 315 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
PROJECT DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. KSHIPRA REALCON L.L.P. THROUGH PARTNER
VIJAY S/O ABHAY CHAJLANI, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 582 M.G. ROAD
LABH, GANGA BUILDING, DISTT. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRIBUNAL
COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM , LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
7
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 316 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. GULJAR SHAH S/O PIRASHAH FAKIR, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O VILLAGE HAWANKHEDI TEHSIL DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. T H E STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 317 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
8
AND
1. SURESH S/O PARASRAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
BANGAR TEHSIL DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 318 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9 MAHANDA
NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. KAILASH S/O PARASRAM, AGED ABOUT 58
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE BANGAR, TEHSIL DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
9
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 319 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. BABU SHAH S/O PIRASHAH FAKIR, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE HAWANKHEDI DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
REVIEW PETITION No. 320 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NATIONAL
HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA B-21/9 MAHANANDA
NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
10
AND
1. DILIP MORE S/O PRATAPRAO MORE, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE BANGAR TEHSIL DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 321 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9 MAHANDA
NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. ISHWAR
SINGH S/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
BAIRAGARH DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. USHA
D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH, TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. SUPAL
D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH, TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
11
4. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS ASHA
D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH, TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS RAJPAL
S/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH, TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1]
REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. MEENAKSHI W/O BEIJBAHADUR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE BAIRAGARH DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
12
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 323 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. BABU SHAH S/O PIRASHAH FAKIR, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE HAWANKHEDI, TEHSIL DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
REVIEW PETITION No. 324 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
13
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. LILABAI W/O SHRIKISHAN, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O 21 MOTI
BANGLOW MAIN BANGLOW MAIN ROAD DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJENDRA S/O SHRIKISHAN, AGED ABOUT 62
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 21, MOTI
BANGLOW MAIN BANGLOW, MAIN ROAD DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VINOD S/O SHRIKISHAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 21, MOTI
BANGLOW MAIN BANGLOW, MAIN ROAD DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRADEEP S/O SHRIKISHAN, AGED ABOUT 55
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 21, MOTI
BANGLOW MAIN BANGLOW MAIN ROAD DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-4].
REVIEW PETITION No. 325 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. GULJAR SHAH S/O PIRASHAH FAKIR, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
14
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE HAWANKHEDI TEHSIL DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 326 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
PROJECT DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. KSHIPRA REALCON L.L.P. THROUGH PARTNER
VIJAY S/O ABHAY CHAJLANI, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 582 M.G. ROAD
LABH GANGA BUILDING DISTT. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRIBUNAL
COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM , LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE).
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
15
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 327 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. GULJAR SHAH S/O PIRASHAH FAKIR, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE HAWANKHEDI
TEHSIL DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 328 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NATIONAL
HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA B-21/9 MAHANANDA
NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
16
1. DINESH S/O PARASRAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
BANGAR TEHSIL DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWA
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 329 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
PROJECT DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. ISHWAR
SINGH S/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
BAIRAGARH TEHSIL AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. USHA
D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. SUPAL
D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. ASHA
D/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
17
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DECD. BHANWARSINGH THROUGH LRS. RAJPAL
S/O BHANWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BAIRAGARH TEH.
AND DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOBVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE))
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 330 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9 MAHANDA
NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. SUMITRA BAI W/O YASHPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT
61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 582 M.G.
ROAD LABH GANGA BUILDING DISTT. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRIBUNAL
COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
18
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 331 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. KSHIPRA REALCON L.L.P. THROUGH PARTNER
VIJAY S/O ABHAY CHAJLANI, AGED ABOUT 61
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 582 M.G.
ROAD LABH GANGA BUILDING DISTT. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRIBUNAL
COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 332 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
19
AND
1. IQBAL SHAH S/O GULJAR SHAH, AGED ABOUT 40
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE HAWANKHEDI TEHSIL DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
REVIEW PETITION No. 333 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT
DIRECTOR IMPLEMENTATION UNIT B-21/9
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
MITESH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. BHAGWAN SINGH S/O TAKE SINGH, AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE BAIRAGARH DISTT.DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ARBITRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY
T R I B U N A L COLLECTOR OFFICE, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 28-05-2024
17:59:25
20
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
T h is petition coming on for admission. this day, Justice Sushrut
Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
This order shall also govern disposal of aforesaid Review Petitions
bearing Nos.309/2024, 310/2024, 311/2024, 312/2024, 313/2024, 314/2024,
315/2024, 316/2024, 317/2024, 318/2024, 319/2024, 320/2024, 321/2024,
322/2024, 323/2024, 324/2024, 325/2024, 326/2024, 327/2024, 328/2024,
329/2024, 330/2024, 331/2024, 332/2024 and 333/2024. Regard being had to the
similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid petitions, they have been
heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts of Review Petition No. 308/2024
are taken up for consideration.
3. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been filed
challenging the order dated 13.02.2024, passed in W.P. No.22500/2023 and in
other connected writ petitions whereby the writ petitions have been allowed.
4. Facts in nutshell are that petitioner's/respondent land bearing Survey
No.1317 admeasuring 0.652 hectare situated in Village Bairagah, Tehsil and
District Dewas was acquired by the National Highway Authority of
India(referred to as "NHAI") for proposed new National Highway Link Road
connectivity(Dewas By-Pass Division) development, four laning and widening.
Notifications were issued and an award was passed by the competent authority
i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) on 15.10.2020. The
petitioner/respondent submitted an application u/S 3(G)(5) of the National
Highway Act, 1956(referred to as "the Act of 1956" hereinafter) before the
Arbitrator i.e. the Additional Collector, Dewas which was decided by order
dated 31.10.2022 after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, the appellant/NHAI
preferred an application u/S 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before
the District Judge, Dewas which was withdrawn on 13.02.2023. Subsequently,
the respondent/Collector, Dewas issued notice to the petitioner/respondent for
reviewing the award dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Additional Collector in the
light of the order passed by the Dy. Secretary, Revenue Department, State of
M.P. dated 28.11.2022 wherein all the Collectors, State of M.P. had been
informed that powers delegated to the Collectors u/S 3(G) (5) of the Act of
1956 for Arbitration cannot be further delegated to Additional Collector or any
other subordinate. Thereafter, the Collector, Dewas issued an order dated
29.11.2022 directing the Additional Collector to produce all the cases decided
by him u/S 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956 for review of the award so passed and
also issued notice to the petitioner/respondent. The petitione/respondent
appeared before the respondent/Collector u/S 16 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996(referred to as "the Act of 1996" hereinafter) raising
objection on the review of the order dated 31.10.2022. The Collector rejected
the objection. Petitioner/responent preferred writ petition no.8351/2023 which
was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2023 with liberty to challenge the order
by which application filed by the petitioner/respondent was dismissed.
5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.08.2023, passed by the
Collector/Arbitrator, Dewas as well as the order dated 28.11.2022, passed by
the Principal Secretary, State of M.P. The writ petition alongwith batch of
petitions were finally decided vide order dated 13.02.2024, dismissing the writ
petitions. Being aggrieved, the present review petitions have been filed.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the order
impugned in the writ petition dated 16.08.2023, passed by the respondent No.2
cannot be termed as a review as held by this Court while deciding the writ
petition in as much as the order has been recalled for de novo hearing and
decision in the light of Circular No.F-16-44/2021/7-2, Bhopal dated 28.11.2022.
Secondly, the learned Senior Counsel contended that after passing of the
impugned order, the petitioners have become remediless despite granting liberty
to avail the alternative remedy. Thirdly, learned Senior Counsel contended that
while deciding the writ petition this Court lost sight of the fact that Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitrator/Collector cannot
further sub-delegate his powers as the State Government has alrerady delegated
the powers to the Arbitrator/Collector. Fourthly, learned Senior Counsel
contended that the order impugned is not an order of review infact, the Upper
Collector was not even competent to decide the case. The Collector has only
invoked his own jurisdiction. In such a situation, the order impugned deserves
to be reviewed/recalled.
7. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no apparent error on the face of
the record so as to review the order. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code clearly stipulates that an Additional Collector shall
exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a
Collector by or under this Code, subject to any general or special restrictions
imposed by the State Government, by an order in writing. The Collector is
justified in delegating the duties conferred to him under Section 3(G)(5) of the
Act of 1956. The order dated 16.08.2023 would amount to review in as much
as in the order dated 29.11.2022(Annexure-P/6) wherein the word "Sampushti"
has been used which amounts to review and, therefore, this Court was right in
dismissing the writ petition holding that the Collector cannot review the award
passed by the Additional Collector in absence of statutory powers of review
under the Act of 1956 that too, after a lapse of one year. In view of the
aforesaid, no ground for review is made out. The review petitions are liable to
be dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
9. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with
the scope of review and states as follows:-
"Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself
aggrieved:-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this
Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this
Code; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which
passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such
order thereon as it thinks fit.
10. The grounds available for filing a review application against a
judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words:
"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.]"
11. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review
application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important
matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the
knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree
was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
12. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others
reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562, The 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 and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (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."
(emphasis added)
13. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported
in (1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one
6that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of
review, the Apex Court held as under:
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. 1 reported in
1964 SCR (5) 174, this Court opined:
11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the
statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not
involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on
the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the
Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial
question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the
earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the
statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error
apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction
which is real, though it might not always be capable of
exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision
which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A
review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for
patent error.'
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a
passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, this Court once again
held that 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 CPC.
9. 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. In exercise of this jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
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'.
[emphasis added]
14. The error referred to under the Rule, must be apparent on the face of
the record and not one which has to be searched out. While discussing the
scope and ambit of Article 137 that empowers the Supreme Court to review its
judgments and in the course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC in Lily Thomas(supra), the Apex
Court held:-
"54. Article 137 empowers this court to review its judgments
subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any
rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of
the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any
of the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure which provides:
"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.
Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review
lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the
record in criminal cases. Order XL Rule 5 of the Supreme Court
Rules provides that after an application for review has been
disposed of no further application shall be entertained in the same
matter.
XXX XXX XXX
56. It follows, therefore, that the 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. The review cannot be treated
like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on
the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is
dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The
rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the
larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of
coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and
practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction
that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of
fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other
statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier
judgment.
XXX XXX XXX
58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order XL of the
Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed
before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the
judgment in the case of Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and
Others v. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC
635. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered
any new and important matter which after the exercise of due
diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought
to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the judgment.
All pleas raised before us were in fact addressed for and on
behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after
considering those pleas, passed the judgment in the case of Sarla
Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union of India and
others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 635. We have also not found
any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a
review. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is
apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to
be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence.
No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The
only arguments ad vanc ed were that the judgment interpreting
Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental
rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing
the judgment. The words "any-other sufficient reason appearing in
Order 47 Rule 1 9 CPC" must mean "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule" as was
held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram reported in AIR 1922 PC 112
and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos.
v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius reported in 1955 SCR
520. Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error
which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions
of law. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa reported in 1955 SCR
250 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent
error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
Ahmad reported in AIR 1955 SC 233, it was held:
" It is essential that it should be something more than a mere
error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of
the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter,
however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its
application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error,
cease to be mere error and become an error apparent on the face
of the record? Learned Counsel on either side were unable to
suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two
classes of errors could be demarcated. Mr. Pathak for the first
respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of
Chagla, CJ in - 'Batuk K Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality
reported in ILR 1953 Bom 191, that no error could be said to be
apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if
it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test
might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of
cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break
down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that
might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so
considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent
on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or
exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in
its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on
the facts of each case. Therefore, it can safely be held that the
petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of
Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla
Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any
substance."
(emphasis added)
15. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court
cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two
views are possible in a matter. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech
Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC
651, the Apex Court observed as follows:
10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to
reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even
if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to
impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the
parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We
are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced
in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is
fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation
of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and
reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a
review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent
on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has
not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on
the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on
a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to
converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise."
(emphasis added)
16. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted
to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at
in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate
power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a
subordinate Court. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. V.
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 501, where it was
held thus:
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is
concerned, the learn e d counsel for the opponent is right in
submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which
had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had
been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review
petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original
matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be
confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to
correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not
rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled
argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The
power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and
circumspection and only in exceptional cases."
"12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant
herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition
was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by
an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in
my opinion, is in the nature of 'second innings' which is
impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted."
17. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320,
the Apex Court 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 in the captioned case as below:
"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.
T h e words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted
i n Chajju Ram vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius & Ors. 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. & Ors reported in
(2013) 8 SCC 337,
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."
18. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Apex Court was examining an order
passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment
that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by
the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had
overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were in
possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary
rights to access his home- stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court
with the following observations:
" 3 ...It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh and
Others v. State of Punjab reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 there
is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a 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 pulpable 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."
(emphasis added)
19. In State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and
Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Apex Court emphasized the
requirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of
discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not
within his knowledge and held thus:
"21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review
is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or
evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must
be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it
might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere
discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not
sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this,
the party seeking review has also to show that such additional
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 earlier."
(emphasis added)
20. In the captioned judgment, the term 'mistake or error apparent' has
been discussed in the following words:
"22. 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 or
Section 22(3) (f) of the Act. To put it differently 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/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In
any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal
concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision".
(emphasis added)
21. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Apex Court explained as to when a
review jurisdiction could be treated as statutory or inherent and held thus :
"18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither
the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its
way. The order of the court should not be prejudicial to
anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it
is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law.
Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ
jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity
and fairness. If the court finds that the order was passed under
a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but
for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its
perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot
on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error.
Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order.
Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of
rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root
from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It
is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the
mistake is of the Court".
(emphasis added)
22. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyuman
Singhji Arjunsinghji reported in (1971) 3 SCC 844, the Apex Court held as
follows:
"4..... It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent
power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by
necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to
notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had
power to review its own order. If the Government had no power
to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not
have reviewed its order......."
(emphasis added)
23. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar
Rawat and Others reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 896, citing previous
decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with
Order XLVII Rule 1, the Apex Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does
not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor
does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a
decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds
prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as
an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of
exercising the power of review.
24. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for
successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made
out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal
Vs. Palani Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review,
it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an
error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be
reviewed merely because it is erroneous.
25. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal
Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be
permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."
26. In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the judgments passed in the
case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no
error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
impugned.
27. The review petitions fails and are, accordingly, dismissed.
28. A copy of the said order shall be kept in the file/record of the other
connected Review Petitions bearing Nos.309/2024, 310/2024, 311/2024,
312/2024, 313/2024, 314/2024, 315/2024, 316/2024, 317/2024, 318/2024,
319/2024, 320/2024, 321/2024, 322/2024, 323/2024, 324/2024, 325/2024,
326/2024, 327/2024, 328/2024, 329/2024, 330/2024, 331/2024, 332/2024 and
333/2024.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
