9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Petitioner/applicants had filed a writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that the process of acquisition was vitiated as it was ex facie in violation of the statutory mandate of Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the Collector had not offered or tendered 80% of the award before taking the possession. They also pray for grant of relief, in the alternative that Respondents be directed to ensure that alternative suitable site is allotted to the Petitioners as by the process of acquisition they had been deprived of their livelihood. This writ petition was disposed of vide order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r interim relief stand disposed of in the above terms. 2. Review of this judgment of the Court is sought on the ground that the Petitioner had raised a pertinent question as to the validity and legality of the acquisition proceedings and even subsequent demolition of the property in question, without adherence to the statutory provisions of the Act. It was alleged that Section 6 declaration had not been issued, still the property of the Petitioners had been demolished. It is averred that notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 9th October, 2003 followed by a corrigendum of 12th November, 2004. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 26th December, 2003 and the Land Acquisition Collector had directed possession of the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequential, as the possession has already been taken over and utilised for the public purpose in accordance with the provisions of law. The contents of the review application and the arguments addressed before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner clearly indicate that Petitioner is actually wanting the rehearing of the matter on merits. The order dated 4th February, 2004 was admittedly not questioned by the Petitioner before the Appellate Court. The intent of the application is to press before the Court re-hearing of the matter on the grounds taken up in the writ petition and even the ground which have not been taken in the writ petition. It is an admitted case that possession of the land has already been taken and 80% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court that the view taken by the Court on different facets of the case - legal and factual - should be substituted primarily because another view was possible. The power to review normally is the creation of a statute. However, in exercise of powers by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can take recourse to the power of review by necessary implication. Such power of review has a limited scope and is normally used for the correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view in law. Such mistake or error contemplated under this rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not a correction of an error which requires long drawn process of reasoning. The limitation on the powers of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal in disguise . 9.An error which is not self evident and has to be dictated by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 10. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas, etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors., JT 2000 Vol.5 SCC 617 further with a clear caution that in exercise of power of review the Court may correct the mistake but not to substitute the view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject, is not a ground for review. 5. Besides that this application is beyond the purview of provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, it must be noticed that the present application is also barred by time. The order was pronounced on 4th Februa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantive writ petition was not maintainable in face of the order dated 4th February, 2004 and also that with regard to the request for allotment of alternative plot the Petitioner had already received a letter from the Land Acquisition Collector. The Counsel then had prayed for leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The Petitioner obviously cannot take advantage of that order. While, we find no merit in this Review Application on the afore-noticed grounds, we would still issue a direction to the Respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench in its order dated 4th February, 2004 in relation to the decision of the application of the Petitioner fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
