The case at hand, Chetram @ Mintu and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, revolves around land acquisition in the village of Sadarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The petitioners, who were landowners, challenged the compensation paid for their land, which had been acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) through notifications dated 30th March 2002 and 28th June 2003. The petitioners sought enhanced compensation at a rate of ₹44,000 per square meter, in line with a previous Full Bench judgment in Gajraj Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others, arguing that the initial compensation of ₹22,000 per square meter was insufficient.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the original writ petition (Writ C No.10106 of 2022) on 22nd April 2022, leading to this review application (Civil Misc. Review Application No. 4 of 2023). The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to enhanced compensation and sought a review of the previous judgment.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Grounds for Review:
The central legal issue was whether the petitioners had presented sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the April 2022 judgment. Under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), review can only be granted in specific circumstances, such as discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous ground. The court had to determine whether these conditions were met.
2. Scope of Review vs. Appeal:
The court also emphasized the distinction between review and appeal. A review cannot be used as an opportunity to reargue the merits of the case, a principle repeatedly reinforced in judgments of the Supreme Court.
3. Application of the Gajraj Singh Judgment:
The petitioners argued that the Full Bench decision in Gajraj Singh entitled them to the higher compensation rate. However, the court had to decide whether this precedent applied to the petitioners’ case, given that their land had been acquired under different circumstances.
Court’s Decision:
The Bench, consisting of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Piyush Agrawal, delivered its judgment on 18th October 2024. The court dismissed the review petition, concluding that the petitioners had failed to meet the stringent requirements for a review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC.
Key Observations of the Court:
– The court stated that “review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise,” and reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
– The court quoted from past Supreme Court judgments, including Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, to underline that review powers are not meant to substitute one view for another. It is reserved for correcting mistakes, not for re-hearing the entire case on merits.
The court noted that the judgment from 22nd April 2022 had already thoroughly examined the facts and legal issues. There was no new evidence or significant error that justified reconsidering the previous decision. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioners were not entitled to the enhanced compensation they sought, as the acquisition of their land differed from the circumstances considered in the Gajraj Singh case.
The High Court dismissed the review application, affirming the previous ruling. The court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and clarified that it could not be used to re-argue a case that had already been decided on its merits.
Lawyers Involved:
– Counsel for the Petitioners (Review Applicants): Ashish Mishra, Jai Shanker Misra
– Counsel for the Opposite Parties (NOIDA and State of U.P.): Chief Standing Counsel, Kaushalendra Nath Singh
