Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6547 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4600 of 2024 Petitioner :- Alka Gupta Respondent :- The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Resettlement Authority,Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritwick Rai,Alok Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Pandey,Ashutosh Verma,Aviral Raj Singh,Dhruv Kumar Singh,Palash Banerjee,Vaibhav Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sharad Tewari Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Shri Aviral Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.4 today. Yesterday, the matter was heard and learned counsel for the petitioner had assisted this Court. Today, matter was listed for hearing on the other side. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.08.2024, whereby the review application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 23.03.2024 was rejected. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner was acquired and an award was passed. However, as the petitioner was aggrieved against the quantum awarded, the matter was referred for adjudication. It is further argued that in terms of the mandate of Section 26 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, a manner of determining the market value is specified. 4. It is argued that the petitioner had claimed that the petitioner was entitled to the amounts as were specified and mentioned in this. Circle rate issued by the District Magistrate/Collector, which included this manner of assessing the circle rate in respect of the property situate in the village, which was also mentioned. Thus, it is argued that while determining the compensation, the entire benefit as approved from the circle rate as notified by the Collector for the year 2020 was not given, as such, the petitioner moved an application for review, as the error was apparent on the face of record. The order impugned, which was sought to be reviewed calculated the benefits flowing in favour of the petitioner based upon the circle rate for the year 2020. However, the entire benefits were not accorded. The review application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that all the issues were considered and as such, the review application does not fall within the scope of review as prescribed under Section 114 of the CPC. 5. Considering the order rejecting the review application, prima facie the authority has erred in ignoring the fact that the limited argument raised by the petitioner before the reviewing authority was that he was entitled to the benefits flowing from the circle rate in its totality, which has not been considered. As the submission was limited to application of the circle rate in totality or partially, the same was clearly within the purview of review. 6. The authority is erred in rejecting the review application while passing the order dated 27.08.2024, as such, the petition is allowed. 7. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned to consider the review application afresh and specifically to consider whether the petitioner could have been granted the benefit of the circle rate notified for the year 2020 in its totality as claimed by the petitioner or not. 8. The petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench