JUDGMENT : 1. The interlocutory application has been filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 42 (forty-two) days. Neither any reply has been filed by the Respondents, nor any serious objection has been raised at the time of arguments. Considering the period of delay and the reasons mentioned, the interlocutory application is allowed and the delay is condoned. Civil Review 12 of 2025. 2. The instant petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed in LPA No. 485 of 2018 dated 31.08.2024, wherein the appeal filed against the order dated 21.06.2018 passed in WP(C) 3653 of 2015 was dismissed. Background of the Case. 3. The Petitioner claims to be the rightful owner of land appertaining to Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 admeasuring an area of 1.04 acres and the land appertaining to Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32 admeasuring an area of 1.22 acres; both plots in the village of Sarwal, Thana No. 334, Police Station Namkum, District-Ranchi. The same was purchased by the Petitioner vide 2 (two) sale deeds dated 27.10.2005 and 8.5.2006 and thereafter the same was also mutated in her name. 4. The Petitioner’s case is that though 0.31 acres of land from Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.23 acres of land from Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32 was acquired for which compensation was also paid; however, the Respondent- State illegally encroached upon an additional, 0.31 acres of land from Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.50 acres of land from Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32. It is pleaded that after several representations, the revenue officers registered a ‘Measurement Case No. 13 of 2010-11’, wherein it was confirmed that construction was going on 0.62 acres in Khata No. 176, Plot No. 121 and 0.73 acres in Khata No. 178, Plot No. 32. 5. The Petitioner’s submission is that once it was established that construction was going on extra portion of land which was acquired in Measurement Case No. 13 of 2010-11, the Petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) 3653 of 2015, claiming compensation for the extra land being utilized by the Respondent. The Respondent-State, contested the writ petition by stating that the ‘additional land’ was further acquired in a Land Acquisition case being Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2010-11 and despite notice, the compensation amount was not received by the Petitioner. The Respondent-State, contested the writ petition by stating that the ‘additional land’ was further acquired in a Land Acquisition case being Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2010-11 and despite notice, the compensation amount was not received by the Petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 21.6.2018, giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent officer and also prefer a statutory appeal, if the situation so requires. 6. This order was assailed by filing a Letters Patent Appeal which was registered as LPA No. 485 of 2018. The primary contention of the Petitioner was that the Ld. Single Judge, has failed to consider that without a notification, no proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be said to be valid in the eye of law. Considering the submission of the Petitioner (Appellant therein), this Court considered it fit to summon the entire records of the land acquisition proceeding vide order dated 1.5.2023. 7. This Court after giving due consideration to the facts of the case and the applicable law dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.08.2024. This Court, in Para-11 of its judgement held that notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published by the Respondent-State and the same has been brought on record of this case by way of supplementary affidavit dated 30.6.2023 (Annexure-B). The Court while dismissing the appeal, placed reliance on the judgement of R.L Jain v. DDA and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 5551 of 1997), and held that even without issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, the Claimant is only entitled to interest and the entire land acquisition process cannot be held to be illegal. Submissions of Review Petitioner & Respondent State. 8. The Petitioner has raised several grounds seeking review of the order passed in LPA No. 485 of 2018. It has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that there is an apparent error in the judgement passed by this Court as finding of the Court that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published in various newspapers such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc., is not present in the record of the case. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner has further tried to impress that the position of law with respect to Section 4 of the Act, 1894 is entirely different and any acquisition without the notification cannot be recognized. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner has further tried to impress that the position of law with respect to Section 4 of the Act, 1894 is entirely different and any acquisition without the notification cannot be recognized. It has been contended by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that though the original records were called for, the Petitioner was never given any opportunity by this Court to satisfy itself about the genuineness and the veracity of the records and as such the entire decision stands vitiated on the grounds of principles of natural justice. 9. In order to buttress his argument, the Petitioner has placed reliance on several judgements. The Petitioner has relied on the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others, (2021) 13 SCC 1 with respect to the scope of review. The case of Shivdev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Ors., ( AIR 1963 SC 1909 ) has also been cited to show that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can review its own order to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave and palpable errors. 10. The Petitioner placing reliance on the case of Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRS v. Motilal (Dead) through LRS, (2009) 14 SCC 663 submits no person can be prejudiced by the actions of a Court and if such a situation arises, then a ground for review is made out. Further, drawing strength from the ratio laid down in the case of Lily Thomas and Ors v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 it was submitted that law is to bent to justice and if a judgement has been rendered under an erroneous assumption which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, then the Court should not refrain from reviewing such an order. Lastly, it has been submitted that this Court did not grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to clarify doubts pertaining to the veracity of the documents in the original file which was summoned, the impugned judgment ought to be reviewed after giving the opportunity to the Petitioner in that respect. In this respect reliance has been placed on the case of Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 281 11. Per contra, the Ld. In this respect reliance has been placed on the case of Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 281 11. Per contra, the Ld. State Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and submits that there is no apparent error in the judgement and accordingly the review petition has no merit and ought to be dismissed. Discussion and Conclusion. 12. We have heard the parties at length and perused the records of the case. The main thrust of the argument of the Petitioner resolves around the findings returned by this Court in para-11 of the judgement. The same is reproduced as under for reference:- “We have also perused the newspaper publication for notification U/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894 read with Bihar (Amendment) Act 11 of 1961, in other daily newspaper such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc which are available in the original records of the department, which were produced before us pursuant to the direction of this Court.” 13. The Petitioner’s contention is that she was never given any opportunity to peruse the said documents in order to ascertain the veracity of the same. The next contention by the Petitioner is that the finding of this Court with respect to the mandatory nature of Section 4 of the Act, 1894 is not in terms of the law. 14. Before dealing with this aspect of the matter, it is important for this Court to discuss the scope of a review petition. The scope and the contours of a review petition is not shrouded in mystery and has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a plethora cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, (2021) 13 SCC 1 has culled out the guiding principles of review from all the previous judgement. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference:- “35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.” 15. This judgement has been relied upon by the Petitioner in order to demonstrate the scope of review. However, upon going through the entire judgement, this Court finds that the judgement does not support the case of the Petitioner; rather shows that it is only under very specific conditions that a judgement can be reviewed. In the case at hand, the Petitioner has tried to make a ground for review on the basis of an error apparent on record. An error which is apparent is such which does not require the Court to enter into a long-drawn process of reasoning as the Court while exercising review jurisdiction cannot sit as a court of appeal and examining and/or rehear the entire records of the case. The aforesaid referred judgement has categorically held that the jurisdiction to review cannot be used to replace a view and correct a judgement. The aforesaid referred judgement has categorically held that the jurisdiction to review cannot be used to replace a view and correct a judgement. Such power is available to correct a mistake with is apparent on record and does not require the power of reason to be traced out. More importantly, review jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute a view as the same amount to rehearing of a case and not mere correction of an error. 16. Now coming to the contention raised by the Petitioner, that due opportunity was not given with respect to the issue of the notification. This Court while dealing with the issue of with respect to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 has held that it has gone through the record of the case and finds that the notification was published in several newspaper. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference:- “ It is further evident from the record that Notification U/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894, read with Bihar (Amendment) Act 11 of 1961, has been widely circulated through newspaper publication. [Refer Annexure-B at Page 23 & 24 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 30.6.2023 filed by DLAO, Ranchi]” It is only after this that this Court has recorded its finding pertaining to the other newspapers and has recorded as under:- “We have also perused the newspaper publication for notification U/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894 read with Bihar (Amendment) Act 11 of 1961, in other daily newspaper such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc which are available in the original records of the department, which were produced before us pursuant to the direction of this Court.” 17. The contention of the Petitioner that she was not permitted to ascertain the veracity of the original records and hence review of the judgement is required cannot be accepted owing to 2 (two) main reasons. Firstly, the notification and paper publication made in 2 (two) newspaper i.e. Commie Tanzeem and Faruki Tanzim are already on the record of the case and as such even if it is assumed that the Petitioner was not permitted to satisfy itself with respect to the publications made in other newspapers such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc, is of no consequence and it shall have no effect on the outcome of the appeal. The mandate is to publish the notification in widely circulated newspapers, which is already complied. For the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that the notification was not published in newspaper such as Prabhat Khabar, Aaj etc, the outcome of the appeal would not change as the Respondent-State has already brought on record newspaper i.e. Commie Tanzeem and Faruki Tanzim as part of its affidavit. 18. This submission does not hold much water in light of the assumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (pari passu to Section 119(e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The same is reproduced as under for ready reference:- (1) The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations. The Court may presume that— “(e) judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;” 19. The Petitioner has not brought any material to show as to why such presumption, especially when the Court has satisfied itself regarding the publication of notices, can be disregarded. Secondly, the sub-para to Para-11 of the judgement records the supplemental finding of the Court. The records of the case were called by this Court to satisfy its conscious. The Court perused the records and thereafter records its satisfaction in the shape of its finding in sub-para-11 of the judgement. The submission of the Petitioner, if accepted, would amount to changing this objective satisfaction of this Court, which in our opinion is impermissible. 20. Next, it is trite law that the Court cannot re-hear the matter and review cannot be disguised as an appeal. This has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 . This Court, while recording that the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was made, has categorically dealt with the situation that even if possession was taken without such a notification, the entire acquisition proceedings would not be vitiated and the land looser would be entitled to interest. Once this Court has rendered a finding after due application of mind, it becomes functus officio, and cannot rehear the lis while sitting in review. Once this Court has rendered a finding after due application of mind, it becomes functus officio, and cannot rehear the lis while sitting in review. The determination of the Court with respect to a proposition of law cannot be altered while adjudicating a review petition. 21. In light of the above facts and the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that no ground for review is made out and accordingly the instant application stands dismissed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.