2025:JHHC:34598-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.139 of 2025 Anokha Mishra, aged about 65 years, son of late Moji Mishra, Resident of Village-Dumri, P.O & P.S-Dumri, District-Giridih …………….. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O & P.S- Giridih, District- Giridih. 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih, P.O & P.S- Giridih, District-Giridih. 4. The Project Officer, Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India, NHAI Complex, Kandra, P.O-Bhitia, P.S- Govindpur, District-Dhanbad …….. Respondents ------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the Respondent-NHAI : Ms. Medha Rudra, Advocate Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Advocate --------- Order No.07/Dated: 10th November, 2025 Per, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A No.13510 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application being I.A No.13510 of 2025 has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 205 days in preferring the Civil Review No.139 of 2025. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant/review petitioner that Civil Review No.139 of 2025 has been filed for review of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in L.P.A No.408 of 2024 whereby a direction was passed directing the respondents to disburse the balance amount of compensation to the petitioner, however, no direction was passed with regard to payment of 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 2 statutory interest on the delayed amount of compensation. 3. It has been contended that against the order dated 03.09.2024 the applicant/review petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court being S.L.P (Civil) Diary No.9633 of 2025 which was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before this Court. Thereafter, as per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court a civil review petition being Civil Review No.139 of 2025 has been filed before this Court and, as such, a delay of 205 days has occurred. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/review petitioner has submitted that the delay has occurred due to pendency of the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court which is beyond the control of the applicant. It has further been submitted that after the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, since, the applicant/review petitioner is an old and ailing person and, as such, he could not arrange the money for filing the review petition in time and, thus, delay of 205 days has occurred in preferring the civil review which is not intentional. Therefore, it has been prayed that the delay may be condoned. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have raised objection to such prayer, however, he has not disputed the fact about the pendency of the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having satisfied with the cause shown in the instant interlocutory application, the delay of 205 days in filing Civil Review No.139 of 2025 is hereby condoned. 7. Accordingly, I.A No.13510 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of as such. Prayer 8. The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for review of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 3 L.P.A No.408 of 2024 primarily on the ground that there is no order of payment for disbursement of the interest amount over and above the amount which has been decided to be paid by preparing an Award by way of compensation. Factual Matrix 9. It is the admitted case of the review petitioner that the Award which has been passed under the provision of National High Ways Act, 1956 awarded an amount of Rs.52 lakhs has not been challenged rather the said award has been acted upon by making payment of Rs.10 lakhs, but the rest of the amount of Rs.42 lakhs has not been paid which compelled the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 5634 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein it has been observed by the learned writ Court in paragraph 13 that petitioner is entitled for compensation which has already been granted to him and he has received only part payment, i.e., Rs.10.00 lakhs and odd and thus, entitled for balance amount of Rs.42.00 lakhs and odd. However, in paragraph 16 of the said judgment a direction has been passed commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, if the petitioner is found entitled for full amount of compensation, the respondents shall pay the balance amount of Rs.42.00 lakhs and odd since the petitioner has already received an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs and odd, within a further period of four weeks. 10. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing an appeal being L.P.A No. 408 of 2024 on the ground that once the writ petitioner has been held entitled for compensation as would be evident from finding as recorded by the learned Single Judge as under Paragraph 13, then there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to grant liberty to the writ petitioner 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 4 to approach the respondent authority for consideration regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for the amount of compensation. 11. The said Letters Patent Appeal has been disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2024 and the Division Bench has quashed the observation/directions of the learned writ Court made at Paragraphs 15 and 16 and the respondents were directed to disburse the amount of compensation within a period of 4 weeks on receipt of the copy of the order. 12. Against the said order the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).9633 of 2025 but the same has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 24.03.2025 which reads as under: “UPON Hearing the counsel, the Court made the following ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would not press this special leave petition if liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court. His submission is placed on record. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.” 13. Thereafter, the present review petition has been filed making a ground for review of order dated 03.09.2024 passed in LPA No. 408 of 2024 that there is no order was passed so far as the interest part is concerned. 14. In order to appreciate the ground of review, it would be apt to refer herein the factual aspects of the case in detail as pleaded in the instant review petition which is being referred herein as under: 15. The writ petitioner/appellant had purchased 2.50 decimals of land being portion of Survey Plot No. 147 under Khata No. 22, situated in village Ghujadih, Thana Dumri, Thana No.101, District Giridih, in the name of his wife, Jayanti Devi for valuable consideration under Registered Sale Deed No. 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 5 11131, dated 20.10.1987 of the office of the District Sub- Registrar, Giridih. 16. Thereafter, the writ petitioner purchased 2.17 decimals of land being portion of Survey Plot No. 147, under Khata No. 22, situated in village Ghujadih, Thana Dumri, Thana No. 101, District Giridih, in the name of his wife Jayanti Devi for valuable consideration under Registered Sale Deed No. 2022, dated 16.02.1993 of the office of the District Sub- Registrar, Giridih. 17. Further, the writ petitioner purchased 2.17 decimals of land being portion of Survey Plot No. 147, under Khata No. 22, situated in village Ghujadih, Thana Dumri, Thana No. 101, District Giridih, in his own name, for valuable consideration under Registered Sale Deed No. 2023, dated 16.02.1993 of the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih. 18. After purchase of the aforesaid plots of land, the names of the writ petitioner and his wife were also duly mutated in the revenue records in the office of the Circle Officer, Dumri, and they also regularly paid rent to the Government in respect of the aforesaid plots of land against proper rent receipts. 19. All the aforesaid three plots of land were adjacent ones and, therefore, amalgamated into one plot of land measuring an area of 6.84 decimals upon which the appellant got a two storied commercial cum residential building complex constructed in the year 2012-13. The appellant also started living in the said building along with his family soon after the construction was over in the year 2013. 20. In the meantime, on 08.03.2014, the wife of the writ petitioner, Jayanti Devi, died, leaving behind the writ petitioner and two sons, Shivnandan Kumar Mishra and Sachin Kumar, as her legal heirs and successors. 21. It has been stated that Notification No. S.O. 602 (E) dated 11.03.2013 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 6 was published in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of the Government of India, declaring its intention of acquiring the land specified in the schedule annexed thereto for building (widening / six laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation National Highway No.2 on the stretch of land from K.M. 320 to Κ.Μ. 368.260 (Aurangabad to Barwa Adda Section) in the district-Giridih in the State of Jharkhand and the substance of the said notification was also published in “Prabhat Khabar” and “Hindustan” local newspapers on 29.06.2013 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 22. Thereafter, the competent authority received objections from the interested persons and disallowed the same under Section 3 (C) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter the competent authority submitted its report to the Central Government in pursuance of Sub- section (1) of Section 3 (D) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 (D) of National Highways Act, 1956, the Central Government by the Notification No. 621 dated 10.03.2014 published in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, declared that the land specified in the schedule thereto shall vest absolutely in the Central Government and should be acquired for the purpose of building (widening / six- laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.2 on the stretch of land from K.M. 320 to K.M. 308.260 (Aurangabad to Barwa Adda Section) in the district-Giridih in the State of Jharkhand. 23. It is pleaded that 0.01acre (1 decimal) land of the writ petitioner was also proposed to be acquired thereunder which was the part of the above mentioned 6.84 decimals land of the writ petitioner. 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 7 24. It is pleaded that in the year 2016, the respondent no.3 issued individual awards detailing the total amount of compensation payable to the interested persons including the writ petitioner, according to which the total compensation amount payable to the appellant for acquisition of land with building is Rs. 52,60,542.00/- (Rupees Fifty-Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Two). However, in September 2016, the appellant was offered only Rs. 10,07,227.00/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seven Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Seven) as the compensation for acquisition of 0.01 acre (1 decimal) of his land with building for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities, which the writ petitioner accepted and received under protest in November, 2016. 25. It is stated that the Register-II, Jamabandi is recorded in the name of Bandhu Ram and others son of Kewal Ram since 1987-88 and the rent receipt is issued by the Government authority till the year 2012- 13. 26. It is pleaded that the land in question was in possession of the descendant of intermediary, from whom Jayanti Devi, wife of the appellant-Anokha Mishra and the appellant purchased the land through Sale Deed Nos. 11131/21.10.1987, 2023/16.02.1993 and 2022/16.02.1993. No record of compensation case was available in A.A. Office (office of Circle Officer, Giridih). 27. It is stated that the writ petitioner/appellant/review petitioner has repeatedly been representing to the respondent authorities for payment of the balance compensation amount to him, but, the respondent authorities are paying no heed to his requests and, recently on 24.09.2018, the employees of the National Highways Authority of India had come to demolish the building of the writ petitioner and dispossess him from his land proposed to be acquired, 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 8 however, he requested them not to do so till his entire payment is cleared, then they went back. Thereafter, on 27.09.2018, the writ petitioner submitted representation to the respondent no. 3 also serving a copy of the same upon the respondent no.4, apprising him of the above facts and also requesting him for the payment of the compensation amount to him in accordance with the award prepared in this case. However, the said respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter and are not doing anything for redressal of the grievances of the writ petitioner. 28. The writ petitioner then filed W.P. (C) No. 5182 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court, praying for payment of balance amount of compensation of Rs. 42,53,315/- along with statutory interest. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2018 directing the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih, to take an informed decision for payment of balance amount of compensation to the writ petitioner. 29. It is pleaded that on 22.08.2019, the District Land Acquisition Officer, passed an order that the land of Khata No. 22, Mouza Ghujadih, Plot No. 147 is Bakashta land and as per the order sheet itself report was called for from Circle Officer, Dungri, which reported as per the entries in Khatian, it was "Bakashta" and mentioned the name of rent receiver as Lekha Ram. Thereafter, Memo no. 7 dated 02.08.2019 was issued to the writ petitioner for return of the compensation amount. 30. Thereafter, being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 5634 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2024. 31. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of rival submissions made on behalf of the parties although has quashed and set aside the order dated 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 9 22.08.2019 by holding the writ petitioner entitled for balance of the amount to the tune of Rs. 42 lakhs and odd. But even though the writ petitioner has been held to be entitled for the rest amount of the compensation, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities annexing all the relevant documents for its consideration by the authority concerned and if the petitioner is found entitled for full amount of compensation, the respondent shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 42 lakhs and odd since the petitioner has already received an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and odd. 32. Thereafter, this petitioner has moved this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2024 against the part of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5634 of 2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to approach the respondent authorities by filing fresh representation and respondent-State was directed to consider the same in accordance with law. This said L.P.A. No. 408 of 2024 was disposed of vide order/judgment dated 03.09.2024. 33. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has moved the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No. 9633/2025 against the Judgment and Final order dated 03.09.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2024 by this Court whereby the Hon’ble Court has directed the respondents to disburse the balance amount of compensation to the petitioner, but no direction was passed so far the payment of statutory interest on the delayed amount of compensation is concerned. 34. The said S.L.P was dismissed as not pressed as referred hereinabove and, thereafter, the present review petition has been filed. Submission of the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner: 35. It has been contended on behalf of the review petitioner that the delay on the part of the respondents to make the balance amount of compensation to the 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 10 petitioner is totally unjustified and the respondents are responsible for deliberate delay in paying the compensation amount to the petitioner. 36. It has been contended that possession of the land acquired from the petitioner was taken by the respondent even before the Award is made in respect of the acquired piece of land in the year 2016. 37. It has been contended that in the writ petition also the petitioner has prayed for compensation amount along with the statutory interest thereon but no order has been passed for payment of statutory interest. 38. It has been contended that about 80% of due compensation amount has been paid belatedly and, thus, the petitioner is entitled for statutory interest in accordance with law. 39. On the aforesaid ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant review petition may be allowed by directing the respondent authority to make payment of statutory interest on belated payment of compensation. Submission on behalf of the respondents: 40. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as NHAI have vehemently opposed the prayer primarily on the ground that the consideration having been made by the learned writ Court as also by the learned Letters Patent Court as would be evident from the impugned order wherein no order was passed for payment of statutory interest and, as such, the present review petition is fit to be dismissed. 41. It has been contended that earlier neither the writ Court nor the Letters Patent Court has passed any order with regard to payment of statutory interest. So far as the payment of compensation Award is concerned, the respondent authority has already paid the entire amount of compensation to the writ petitioner and, 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 11 as such, question of payment of statutory interest thereon does not arise. 42. It has been contended that it is evident from the order passed in Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).9633 of 2025 that no direction was passed by the Hon’ble Apex with regard to payment of statutory interest, however, at the instance of the writ petitioner the same was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a civil review before this Hon’ble High Court and, as such, the prayer made by the review petitioner cannot be entertained. 43. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, have submitted that after receiving the awarded amount of compensation and without any specific order for payment of interest amount, the present review petition is not maintainable and it is fit to be dismissed. Analysis: 44. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the review petition based upon the pleadings made in the writ petition. 45. On the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect the moot question herein is that: “Whether the issue of interest having not been raised on inception of the Award where there is no decision pertaining to disbursement of interest can be and, in a situation, where the award has not been challenged, is it available for the review petitioner to again question the same by seeking a fresh direction by way of review?” 46. It is evident that the instant review petition primarily has been filed on the aforesaid ground in the backdrop of the fact that the statutory amount of interest has not been paid as it is laches on the part of the respondents to make 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 12 payment belatedly and, as such, the writ/review petitioner is entitled to get statutory interest on the delayed payment of compensation. 47. While on the other hand, the respondents have vehemently opposed the prayer primarily on the ground that the consideration having been made by the learned writ Court as would be evident from the impugned order wherein the reason has been assigned that since the petitioner has received only part payment, i.e., Rs.10 lakhs and odd and thus, he is entitled for balance amount of Rs.42 lakhs and odd, but nowhere any direction for payment of interest on payment of compensation was granted either by the learned writ Court or by the Letters Patent Court. 48. It has been contended that in any way the same cannot be a ground for review, since, the consideration is there and if the petitioner is at all agreed then the recourse available to the them is to prefer an appeal before the appropriate Forum and not the instant review petition. 49. This Court before appreciation of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties with respect to the issue as to whether the power of review is to be exercised in the factual background of the present case needs to be referred to underlying principle to invoke the power of review. 50. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., [AIR 1954 SC 526], particularly, at paragraph-32 has observed as under: “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 13 on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” 51. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of India (1980) Supp. SCC 562, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: “12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: ‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ….. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 52. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: “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: (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” has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 14 Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto 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 re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground 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.” 53. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the face of the order or the factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in spite of the due diligence having been taken in the matter of making available the factual aspect of the relevant documents. 54. Thus, the position of law is well settled, as would appear from the reference of the judgment made hereinabove that the review of the judgment can only be made if the new fact has come which could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of the due diligence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose (supra). 55. It is evident that while power of review may be inherent in the High Court to review its own order passed in a writ petition, the same has to be exercised on well-recognised and established grounds on which judicial orders are reviewed. For example, the power may be exercised on the discovery of some new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 15 the parties seeking review despite due exercise of diligence when the order was made. 56. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some error apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous thereto. These are all grounds which find mention in various judicial pronouncements right from the earliest time as well as in the Rules of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as permissible grounds of review. 57. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 58. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 16 59. In the very recent judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the proposition has been laid down to entertain the review, as has been held at paragraph16.1 to 16.7 which reads as under:- “16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record e justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.—" 60. Now adverting to the fact of the instant review petition, it is evident that the law with respect to exercise of power of review is settled which can only be exercised in the case where there is any error apparent on the face of the record and the fact could not be brought to the notice in spite of the due diligence of the parties concerned. 61. This Court has to proceed to examine the ground of review on the basis of the legal position as has been settled by the learned Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove. 62. From perusal of order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P.(C). No. 5634 of 2019 it is evident that issue of interest has not been raised therein rather the prayer 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 17 has been made for quashing the order dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure-7), passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih whereby the claim of petitioner even after passing of the order by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 5182 of 2018 has been refused on the ground that Khata No. 22 over which the petitioner’s land was situated is “Bakasht” land and further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 28.02.2019, issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih whereby the petitioner has been directed to return the amount of Rs.10,07,227/- which was paid to him as compensation for acquisition of his land. 63. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that neither the question of interest has been raised by the petitioner nor the respondent-State was directed to pay the interest upon the claimed compensation amount. 64. This Court has further gone through the judgment rendered by the Letters Patent Court dated 03.09.2024 passed in the L.P.A No. 408 of 2024 wherefrom it is evident that the writ petitioner being aggrieved with the part of order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P.(C). No. 5634 of 2019 by which even though the writ petitioner has been held to be entitled for the rest amount of the compensation, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities annexing all the relevant documents for its consideration by the authority concerned. 65. The Letters Patent Court has quashed the part of the said observation/directions of the learned writ Court made at Paragraphs 15 and 16 and the respondents were directed to disburse the amount of compensation within a period of 4 weeks on receipt of the copy of the order. 66. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the consideration having been made by the learned writ Court as also by the learned Letters Patent Court as would 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 18 be evident from the impugned order wherein no order was passed for payment of statutory interest. 67. it is further evident from the order passed in Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).9633 of 2025 that no direction was passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to payment of statutory interest, however, at the instance of the writ petitioner the same was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a civil review before this Court. 68. This Court, therefore, is of the view that whatever grievance is being raised by filing the instant review petition is not fit to be entertained herein. Further it is considered view of this Court that the present review is an appeal in the garb of review which cannot be allowed to be maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” (Emphasis supplied) 69. Similarly, in S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: 15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 19 Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under: “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 70. Further, in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 16.5 has observed that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 71. It is thus, evident from the aforesaid proposition of law that the review cannot be filed in disguise of an appeal. 72. This Court, as per the aforesaid reason and relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer & Anr. (supra) as also taking into consideration the ground which is to be 2025:JHHC:34598-DB 20 applied in review of the order which has been discussed and referred hereinabove, is of the view that the instant civil review is fit to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed. 73. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated:10.11.2025 Sudhir Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR