close
close

Ourladyoftheassumptionparish

Part – Newstatenabenn

    • Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
    patheur

    Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

    Sakege Posted on

    He Allahabad High Court recently noted that a revision is permissible only when an error is evident in the record without requiring a long process of reasoning and reevaluation of all the evidence to find the errorsince doing so would be tantamount to exercising appellate jurisdiction.

    Explaining the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPCa bank of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Piyush Agrawal It noted that a ruling may be open to review, among other things, if an error or error is evident in the record.

    “An error, which is not self-evident and must be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error evident in the record which justifies the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code. of Civil Procedure”said the Court.

    In this sense, the Court referred to the rulings of the Superior Court in cases of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury 1994 and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale 1959 in which it was held that a review must be limited to the error apparent in the record, and the error must be such that it is evident to the naked eye without any lengthy process of reasoning.

    In both cases, the Supreme Court had also emphasized that a re-evaluation of the evidence on record to find an error would amount to an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not at all permissible.

    The Court also opined that a review on the basis that the decision was erroneous on the merits is not permissible, as the same would fall within the jurisdiction of a Court of Appeal, and that a plea for review is based solely on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC.

    In this sense, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v B. Valluvar 2006wherein it was held that the parameters of the review jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised within the limitations provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the CPC Rule, and without recording a finding as to whether there was obvious error upon In view of the background, merit cannot be considered.

    The Court further explained that the review application can only be admitted for the following reasons:

    (1) discovery of new and important evidence that, after the exercise of due diligence, was not known to, or could not be presented by, the person seeking review at the time the order was issued, or

    (2) when any error or mistake is found in the record, or

    (3) for any similar reason.

    The Court made these observations while dismissing an application filed to review a judgment and order passed by a division bench in April 2022.

    The case in summary

    Essentially, the petitioners were owners of certain lands in Sadarpur Village, Gautam Buddh Nagarand sought compensation of Rs. 44,000 per square meter for an additional 5% of Abadi land instead of Rs. 22,000 per square meter offered by the State in the land acquisition notifications of 2002 and 2003.

    They were based on a Plenary ruling in Gajraj Singh and Ors. v. U.P. State (2011). However, a division bench (April 2022) dismissed his request, since he pointed out that the issue had already been resolved in the Gajraj Singh case, where similar writ petitions were rejected.

    The Court further said that the petitioners could not be granted any relief beyond what had been decided in the Gajraj Singh judgment.

    In the appeal for review, the petitioners argued that they had previously filed a Writ Petition in 2012, which was resolved by the Division Bench in accordance with the ruling of the Plenary Bench in The case of Gajraj Singh (2011).

    In this context, it was insisted that they were entitled to receive full compensation of 64.7% and it is true that the same has been granted to the petitioners.

    The petitioners further argued that the Full Court had already addressed additional compensation for the land in the Village where their properties were also located.

    They were based on the decision of Pratap Singh vs State of UP (2012), where the Division Court had granted similar relief to petitioners from other villages of NOIDA. They also cited a 2016 NOIDA Board resolution that provided for compensation for additional abadi land.

    Now, in the review, they argued that even though these arguments were raised, the Divisional Court rejected their petition and therefore they sought a review of the same.

    On the other hand, the respondent authority (NOIDA) opposed the review application arguing that the lands of the petitioners had been acquired through mutual negotiation and sale deeds executed in November 2001 and registered in July 2002.

    Therefore, it was held that the petitioners were not entitled to additional compensation as per the Full Bench judgment in the case. The case of Gajraj Singh (2011) as their land was purchased before the acquisition notifications (Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act).

    It was categorically argued that the petitioners’ claim for additional compensation was based on misleading facts as their lands were not acquired through final notifications but through sale deeds.

    It was also stated that the petitioners were not entitled to enhanced compensation (64.7%), as it was only available to those whose lands were acquired between March 2002 and March 2009, and the petitioners’ lands did not meet the requirements , since they had been purchased in 2001.

    Thus, it was held that the order of the Division Bench was founded and that the review petition against the same was without merit.

    In the context of these submissions, the court, noting that it cannot re-examine the merits of a case or grant a rehearing under the guise of a petition for review, concluded that the petitioners had failed to comply with the grounds for review. .

    Therefore, observing that the Division Bench had thoroughly addressed all aspects of the case before dismissing the writ petition, the Court found no valid grounds for allowing the revision plea and, therefore, the same was dismissed.

    Appearances

    Attorney for the applicant: Ashish Mishra, Jai Shanker Misra

    Attorney for the opposing party: CSC, Kaushalendra Nath Singh

    Case title – Chetram @ Mintu and 4 more people against State of UP and 3 more people

    Appointment:

    Click here to read/downloadOrder

    Sakege
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like