Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010178872025 2025:GAU-AS:15989 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./222/2025 THE PRESIDENT, SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HILAPAKARI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHAHJAHAN ALI AHMED, S/O. LT. MAFIJ UDDIN, R/O. JAYPUR, HOWLY, BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781316. VERSUS NAGARJHAR NAU-JUWAN CLUB AND LIBRARY AND 12 ORS A REGD. SOCIETY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SHARFUL ALOM, S/O. LT. SOHRAB ALI, R/O. VILL.- NAGARJHAR, P/O. AND P/S. HOWLY, BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781316 2:ANISUR RAHMAN S/O. LT. MAHMUDUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL.- NAGAJHAR P/O. AND P/S. HOWLY DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781316 3:HAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O. LT. ALI AJGAR R/O. VILL.- JAIPUR P/O. AND P/S. HOWLY DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781316 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF THE ASSAM GOVT. SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Page No.# 2/6 JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM PIN-781006 5:THE SECRETARY OF THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWANM DISPUR ASSAM PIN-781006 6:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 7:THE DIRECTOR SPORTS AND YOUTH WELFARE RUDRA SINGH SPORTS COMPLEX SUPER MARKET DISPUR ASSAM GUWAHATI-781006 8:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03. 9:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 10:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION) P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 11:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BARPETA ASSAM Page No.# 3/6 P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 12:THE DISTRICT SPORTS OFFICER GANDHINAGAR BARPETA P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 13:THE PRINCIPAL HILAPAKARI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL JAIPUR HOWLY BARPETA P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y S MANNAN, NIKHULI G ZHIMO,MD IMRAN,MR S H SIKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MS U DAS, GA, ASSAM, MR. N J DUTTA, ADV.,MR R DHAR,SC, P W D,SC, SEC. EDU. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 24.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Ms. U. Das, learned State counsel representing the respondent Nos. 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12, Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education representing the respondent No. 4, 6, 11 and 13 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD representing the respondent No. 8. Page No.# 4/6 2. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 11.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 1057/2025 3. The writ petition was preferred alleging that the construction of a new School Building of Hilapakri Higher Secondary School is being carried out over land under Dag No. 133 by encroaching into a football field, which is being used not only by the students of the School but also by the residents of the locality and the villagers. 4. During the writ proceeding, the respondent No. 7, i.e. Additional District Commissioner, Barpeta, filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, a stand was taken that the school’s ground is used for sporting activities with due permission from the School authority, and such activities can still be carried out, after construction of the new building, as the construction of the new building is carried out over the land under Dag Nos. 148 and 134. 5. Based on such affidavit, this Court, under its order under review, concluded that the school building is not constructed over Dag No. 133. Accordingly, it was provided that no construction should be carried out over the football field under Dag No. 133. 6. The present review petition is filed by the School Management Committee on the ground that, in fact, as per the design, one portion of the school is to be constructed over Dag No. 133, which is recorded in the name of the school. It is contended that, while filing the affidavit, the updated land record relating to Dag No. 133 was not placed on record; instead, the survey record of 1958-1959 was relied on. Accordingly, it was contended that such vital materials were not placed before this Court at the relevant point in time. 7. During the proceeding of the review, this Court under its order dated 06.11.2025, sought instruction as regards actual facts and accordingly, the District Commissioner, Barpeta, has produced required instruction, which goes to show that, in fact the design prepared suggest construction over a little portion of the Page No.# 5/6 Dag No. 133, and construction has already been started, however, by virtue of the order under review, such construction could not be completed and there is serious public interest involved in this case. 8. Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/opposite party, raised certain dispute to suggest that, as per the Chitha copy of 2024-2025, the land is earmarked as a playing field. The allegation of non-service of notice upon the review petitioner by the writ petitioner during the proceeding, it is contended by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel, that the dasti service was affected upon the said review petitioner, which the Principal of the School duly received. 9. During the proceeding of the review, certain map and documents including photographs of the construction was produced and stand is also taken that after completion of the new school building, the old school building will be demolished and in the event, the length and breadth of the school field shall be maintained though may not be in the standard of a football field as per FIFA norms. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The material error, to exercise the power of review, must be manifested on the face of the order and would result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. 12. The error apparent on the face of the record shall mean a self-evident error, and no process of reasoning is required to detect such error. Therefore, when an error is not self-evident and is required to be detected by the process of reasoning, such an error cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record. 13. In the case in hand, this Court passed the order under review, balancing both the requirement for a new school building and the need to protect the playground. Now, a dispute has arisen regarding the status of Dag No. 133, with Page No.# 6/6 contemporaneous material, which was not placed before this court during the writ proceedings. 14. In the opinion of this Court, in the backdrop of the present case, the fact brought on record, is having a substantial bearing on the decision of this Court rendered in the order under review more particularly, in the backdrop that no determination was made as regards the right of any of the contesting parties but with an object to protect the school field balancing the interest of the school to continue with the construction. 15. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there was an error apparent on the face of the record, which is self-evident and no process of reasoning is required to detect such error. It is the further opinion of this Court that the material error as aforesaid, if allowed to remain as it is, undermines the soundness of the decision under review. 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the review petitioner has been able to make out a case for review. 17. Accordingly, the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 1057/2025 is hereby recalled. 18. The writ petition is restored with the original file, and the registry is directed to list the restored writ petition before the appropriate bench as per the roster. 19. Accordingly, the review petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant