IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.15 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vikas and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramesh Sharma and Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents/State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP(M) No. 1859 of 202 4 For the reasons set out in the application, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. The petition be registered. Review Petition No. 15 of 202 5 2. Be registered. 3. By way of present Review Petition filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the review petitioners to review the judgment 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 dated 12.03.2024, passed by this Court in CWP No.7603 of 2023, titled as Vikas and Others versus State of H.P. and Others, whereby this Court disposed of the petition with the following direction: “6. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid development, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of with a direction to the Executive Engineer (B&R) Division HPPWD, Kotkhai to ensure that award amount is deposited expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks, enabling Land Acquisition Collector to release the same in favour of the petitioners, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law including contempt proceedings, if required and desired.” 4. I have heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and gone through the record of the case. 5. The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the grounds urged before Writ Court. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the order sought to be reviewed cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held: 3 “11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.....” (P.1377) 6. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise. 7. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, the present petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to award passed by competent Court of law under Land Acquisition Act. Needless to say, Court concerned while considering appeal, if any, filed by the petitioner shall take note of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 4 Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)