MINI K.V Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed by the writ petitioner seeking to review the judgment dated 10.04.2017, which reads thus:-

(2.) The paramount contention advanced in the review petition is that, consequent to the directions contained in the judgment, an award was passed on 16.06.2020 and communicated to the petitioner on 22- 06 2020, which is per se illegal, as the earlier proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) has lapsed by operation of Section 11A of the said Act. However, at the outset, it is made clear that, consequent to the judgment rendered by this Court, the direction was complied with and therefore, the judgment was acted upon. In that view of the matter, prima facie, a review is not maintainable, especially in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Nagaland and Another v. Toulvi Kibami and another [2003 (8) SCC 671], by which the law was laid down that if the judgment was acted upon, no review is maintainable.

(3.) That apart, going through the reliefs that were sought for in the writ petition and the pleadings and legal grounds raised therein, review petitioner wanted only directions to the respondent to pass final award in LAC No.1/11 in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) and a further mandamus directing the respondent to calculate the compensation under the provisions of Act, 2013 and pass final award. It was taking into account the vital pleadings put forth and the reliefs sought for, the writ petition was allowed and appropriate directions were issued. But surprisingly, the grounds raised in the review petition to review the judgment is quite contrary to the pleadings and the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition and in all respects, such grounds are raised after the award was passed as an afterthought, and therefore totally alien and strange in a petition for review of a judgment. That said, an application for review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. It is also a settled legal position that a review petition need to be entertained only if such ground was raised in the writ petition and the court had omitted to consider it. Merely because the petitioner could not point out all the aspects of the case in the writ petition, it cannot be a ground to bring in new facts and seek for review of the judgment. It is also a settled legal position that new questions cannot be raised in a review petition.