STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RAMESWAR PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dtd. 18/4/2024 passed in MAT 1095 of 2019 is under review in the instant review application. Learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to paragraph no. 23.1 of the judgment which is quoted herein below:-

(2.) Learned Advocate General submitted that although the Division Bench had proceeded to dispose of the said appeal on the assumption that the proceeding under Sec. 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was still pending, but, in fact, the said proceedings were completed on 13/8/2019. Mr. Dutta fairly submitted that unfortunately the said factum was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench during hearing of the above appeal from the side of the appellant or by the respondents. However, the observation in the aforesaid judgment that the said proceeding under Sec. 14T(3) under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was still pending, is an error apparent factually, and hence the instant review application is being moved after filing the prayer for condonation of delay. If the said error is allowed to remain in the said judgment of the Hon 'ble Division Bench it will cause miscarriage of justice since such observation of the Hon 'ble Division Bench was based on certain wrong factual matrix. Accordingly, Mr. Dutta submitted that a clarification is required since by order dtd. 13/8/2019 of the competent authority, the relevant land measuring about 2.83 acres vested in the State free from all encumbrances and as a result no demarcation is required as per observation of the learned single Judge which was affirmed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal. Mr. Dutta has referred to several judgments in support of his contention. He submitted that in (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 376 (Khoday Distilleries Limited (now known as Khoday India Limited) & Ors. Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal (under Liquidation) represented by the Liquidator the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has laid down that an order refusing special leave to appeal does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order reusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to entertain the appeal. Mr. Dutta candidly submitted that though the special leave petition against the judgment and order dtd. 18/4/2024 was refused that does not take away the right of the appellant to file the present review application particularly when the said judgment of Division Bench contains an error apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) Mr. Dutta also relied on the decision reported in (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 602, State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Ors. to impress upon this court that it is the duty of the High Court with its plenary power to correct grave palpable errors committed by it for the purpose of preventing miscarriage of justice. Mr. Dutta also referred to a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench in CPAN No. 2796 of 2014 (Shri Sadhan Roy (Budhuk) & Ors. Vs. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors. In the said judgment the High Court had recalled and set aside its previous orders due to non-availability of records at the relevant point of time when the writ petitioners had approached the court.