Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010063702024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./59/2024 ANITA MECH W/O SRI SUREN MECH, VILL . LAHORIJAN, NC KARAGAON BLOCM NO. 2, MOUZA-BORAJAN, KARBI ANGLONG VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 17 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING BELONGING TO GOVT.OF INDIA SITUATED AT 3RS FLOOR PTI BUILDING 4 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPTT. OF HILL AREAS GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG 5:THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER DEPTT. OF REVENUE Page No.# 2/6 KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU 6:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU 7:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE DEPTT. OF REVENUE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG 8:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG 9:THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG 10:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR DIST. KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU 11:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIST. KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU 12:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE KHATKHATI POLICE STATION KHATKHATI KARBI ANGLONG 13:BISHESWAR DAIMARY NEAR ASSAM RIFLES 1ST GATE OPPOSITE KANCH RESORT P.O. AND P.S DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG 14:JYOTI PRAKASH GOGOI ASSAM 15:BALIRAM KATHAR A RETIRED MONDAL Page No.# 3/6 16:ASTEK TERANG KANANGO (SK) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU 17:DARSHAN KRO R/O TARALANGSO NEAR SANKUR ANGLONG WARD NO. 9 P.O. AND P.S DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG 18:RATUL TERON VILL. KARAGAON BLOCK NO. 1 KARBI ANGLON Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K L R YANTHAN, MS. K JAIN,MS. S. CHANDA,MR P UPADHYAYA,MR. A K DAS,MS. U NANDA,MR. R MAJUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. D J DAS(R-1),GA, ASSAM,SC, NHAI,SC, KARBI ANGLONG BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.12.2025 Heard Ms. K.L.R. Yanthan, learned counsel for the review applicant. Also heard Shri J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel KAAC; Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel, Assam and Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL. Shri SSA Rahman, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 18. 2. By the instant application, a review has been sought for in respect of an order dated 03.11.2022 passed in WP(C)/6453/2019. Page No.# 4/6 3. Apart from the aspect that the review petition has not been presented within the time prescribed in law, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds on which the review has been sought for cannot be available to the applicant. It clearly appears that this Court, vide the aforesaid order dated 03.11.2022 had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court, if any dispute arises in terms of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956. 4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law and the observations made by this Court in the order dated 03.11.2022 would show that no prejudice of any nature was caused to the applicant and rather, liberty was granted. 5. Shri Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent no. 18 has submitted that the said respondent had filed a separate writ petition, being WP(C)/734/2025 in which, notice has been issued on 14.02.2025. He has also placed before this Court a gist of the submission which is kept on record. 6. The powers of review are to be exercised in a circumscribed manner. In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 the following have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: Page No.# 5/6 (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground Page No.# 6/6 for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 7. In the subsequent case of S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, a Three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid law laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra). 8. In the present case, it is seen that none of the grounds for review has been able to be demonstrated. No error apparent on the face of records in the order has been able to be made out and there is no case of discovery of new materials or any other sufficient grounds. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any grounds to entertain this review petition which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant