THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Itanagar Permanent Bench Review Petition No. 4(AP)/2026 1. ShriMatheimLinggi, aged about 59 years, Son of Late G. Linggi, permanent resident of Mayu-II village, P.O& P.S Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. ShriLokepLinggi, aged about 47 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Mayu-II, PO& PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. Shri Newton Linggi, aged about 45 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Ezengo, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 4. SmtiKomolaMito, aged about 52 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Mayu-II, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 5.ShriAengaLinggi, aged about 31 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Mayu-II, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 6. Miss LaxmiLinggi, aged about 32 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Mayu-II, PO & PS Roing, District-Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. GAHC040004822026 7. Miss YaminiLinggi, aged about 30 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Mayu-II, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 8. Miss AmiyaLinggi, aged about 26 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Mayu-II, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 9. ShriAjoLinggi, aged about 24 years, permanent resident of Dambuk, presently residing at Mayu-II, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. ……Review petitioners -Versus- 1. ShriBohomi Mimi, age S/o late Yora Mimi, resident of Sirang Village, PO & PS Dambuk, District Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 2.ShriBota Mimi, age Son of late Yora Mimi, resident of Mayu-II Village, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. ShriAjad Mimi @ Wuti Mimi, age Son of late Yora Mimi, permanent resident of Intaya Village, PO & PS Roing, District Lower Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh. 4. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and 8 Ors. Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 5. The Secretary, Land Management, Govt. ofArunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 6. The Principal Chief Conservator, Department of Environment and Forest, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 7. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Eastern Arunachal Circle, Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh. Page 3 of 28 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing, Arunachal Pradesh. 9. The National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, represented by its Chairman- cum-Managing Director NHPC Office Complex Sector 33 Faridabad-121003, Haryana. 10. The General Manager, Dibang Multipurpose Project, Mayu Sector, PO Roing, LowerDibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. 11. NarkoLinggi, Son of late AnggandoLinggi, resident of Village Sirang, Dambuk, PS Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Prades-792110. 12. Smti Rani Mimi, age 55, wife of Gandhi Mito, resident of Village Sirang, PS Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh-792110. ……Opposite party/Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocate for the review petitioners : Mr. T. Son Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2, & 3 : Mr. M. Chanda. Advocate for the respondents No. 4 to 10 : Mr. R.H. Nabam, Addl.A.G. Advocate for the respondents No. 11 & 12 : Mr. T.T. Tara, Sr. Counsel, assisted by Ms. E. Smith. Date on which judgment is reserved : 22.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondent Nos. 4 - 10; and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. E. Smith, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 11 & 12. 2. This review petition, under Section 114 read with Order XXXXVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 19.03.2026, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.352/2025 and WP(C) No.247/2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 19.03.2026, both the writ petitions were disposed of on the basis of the submission advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present review petition, are briefly stated as under:- “In the year 2025, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued the Notification, under Section 10 of Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Track Jhum Land (Amendment) Act 2024, vide No. LMD- 13011/1/2021, dated 19.06.2025, in the name of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, for acquisition for public purposes, a parcel of land measuring 68.40 Hactares i.e. for construction of Right Bank Road, from ADC Morh to Mithun Gate, at New Apali, under Dambuk Sub-Division, LowerDibang Valley District, for the construction of Dibang Multipurpose Project (2880 MW) in Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh. The boundary of the land to be acquired 68.40 ha, is as under:- North:- Private & Community Land South:- Private & Community Land East:-Private & Community Land West:- Private & Community Land The private lands of the petitioners were taken over for the aforesaid purpose, without making any land compensation to the petitioners for acquisition of the Land Measuring 68.88 hectares, as per the Provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Then as per the direction of the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District accepted for hearing the Claims and Objections, on the date of Final Notification, but on 29-12-2025 and 30-12-2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley, Roing as well as ADC Dambuk after taking over the final hearing, the ADC Dambuk all of sudden, sent entire claims and objections before Deputy Commissioner, Roing for final adjudication, as a result of which all the parties were asked to submit Primary documents and on being produce the primary documents, the ADC Dambuk took up the hearing and after hearing, the ADC Dambuk submitted a report, dated 15-10-2025,to the effect that petitioners do not have any primary documentary evidence to proof their ownership. The applicant, thereafter, obtained all relevant documents through the RTI, issued by DLR&SO, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District and found that inspite of negative report on the primary evidence adduced by the petitioner in WP(C)No. 352/2025 and linked case No. WP(C) No. 247/2025, Shri Narko Linggi & 8 Ors. had misled this Court that they have compromised the dispute, amicably settled the dispute. Whereas, there is no written documentary evidence to substantiate before the court as regard the legality and validity of such amicable settlement which is totally incorrect statements placed before the Court on 19-03- 2026, by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, and the petitioner's counsel without obtaining certified copy from the Registry, just took a printout of the order copy from the website and later on, submitted said order copy to Deputy Commissioner as well as the ADC Dambuk without submitting any compromised letter and in fact, there was no record of compromise between the parties. Accordingly, on 19-03-2026, on the submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the writ petition stood closed without providing any opportunity to the petitioners nor the petitioner's ever impleaded in the said petition as party for fair and transparent dispensation of justice. It is the case of the petitioners that on 24-12-2025, the Deputy Commissioner had issued Notice vide No. DL-LDV-22016/3/2023, dated 18th December, 2025 and vide said notice, the applicant No. 1 was directed to appear before him on the above mentioned date and time alongwith relevant documents or any other evidence in support of their claims/objections to his Office on or before 26-12-2025, in continuation of land acquisition proceeding relating to construction of the Right Bank Road from ADC Morh to Mithun Gate, at New Aphali and additional facility area (from area/stretch 1 to 4). It was also notified that claims and objections regarding rightful ownership over the land notified for acquisition measuring 68.88 Hectares. Then as directed by the DC, Roing, the petitioners submitted documents alongwith the list of relevant documents from Serial Nos. 1 to 40, as mentioned in the list for perusal at the time of hearing. However, on the day of 29-12-2025, the DC, Roing, did not take up the final hearing and it was adjourned for some other day, and that the land measuring 68.88 hectares, is still pending for disposal, whereas, the land measuring 68.88 hectares has also been included in the order passed by this Court on 19-03-2026, as well as land measuring 17.62 hectares, without impleading the names of the petitioners in the joint petition filed by the parties in respect of the plot of land measuring 17.62 hectares, out of 68.678 hectares, which is innocuous. The petitioners are in possession of the said land and the respondents cannot claim rights over the ownership of the land since there is no any primary evidence relating to the land in question as because the respondents failed to adduce any primary evidence during the hearing before the ADC, Dambuk. Therefore, the respondent in writ petition in WP(C) No. 352/2025 and WP(C) No. 247/2025, had not impleaded the petitioners as necessary parties as in the said two writ petitions before this Court and obtain the order dated 19-03-2026 on surreptitiously with an intention to draw benefits from the respondents authority without any ownership of the land measuring 68.36 hectares (rounded of 68.40 Hectares). The petitioners of the writ petitions are not the rightful owners of lands and before being filed any petition for amicable settlement of the case, the petitioners herein are entitled to be heard and they should have been impleaded by this Court in the connected writ petition. Now the petitioners are being affected by the order dated 19-03-2026, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 352/2025 and WP(C) No. 247/2025. It is also their case that there is no any intentional and willful and deliberate delay on the part of the petitioners for delaying of filing the instant review petition before this Court, as because the order was passed on 19-03-2026 by this Hon'ble Court. Being highly aggrieved by the Order dated 19-03-2026, passed in WP(C) No. 352/2025 and WP(C) No. 247/2025 by this Court, without impleading the petitioners as parties in both the writ petition the petitioners preferred this review petition on the following grounds amongst others:- (A) The learned counsels of the parties acted illegally and with material irregularity by misleading this Court, got the order dated 19.03.2026 passed, without impleading the petitioners as necessary parties in WP(C) No. 352/2025 and WP(C) No. 247/2025 and thereby caused irreparable loss and injuries and as such, the order dated 19-03-2026 is liable to be reviewed as the same being not sustainable in law. (B) The hearing for claims and objections before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dambuk has failed due to deficiencies of primary evidence and accordingly, the same were disposed of and that there is no any amicable settlement between the parties. (C) The petitioners cases are pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing. (D) There is no any fault on the part of petitioners in the instant review petition. 5. The respondents have not filed their objection/affidavit in this petition. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners:- 6. Mr. Son, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the time of hearing, has re-iterated the grounds mentioned in the petition. He submits that the petitioners herein are in possession of both the stretches of land measuring 68.678 hectares and 17.62 hectares, and they are the rightful owners and at the time of hearing claim and objection, the ADC, has illegally held that they have no primary documents to support their claim. He further submits that the respondents herein had never impleaded the petitioner as party in the writ proceeding and the order under review was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to them. Therefore, the petitioners suffered serious prejudice and that there was no compromise as submitted by the respondent before this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petitions. Under the given factual scenario Mr. Son has contended to allow this petition and to review the order dated 19.03.2026. 6.1. Notably, Mr. Son, when asked as to whether the petitioners herein had filed any claim and objection regarding the land measuring 17.62 hectors, before the ADC/Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibong Valley district, submitted that they have not filed any claim and objection in respect of 17.62 hectors of land, however, they have made verbal claim and objection. 7. Per contra, Mr. Nabam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 10 submits that two different notifications were issued by the respondent authorities for acquiring two different stretches of land being 68.678 hectares and 17.62 hectares, and that the competent authority had issued notice to the petitioner at the time of hearing claims and objections and the petitioners herein had failed to produce any primary documents in support of their claims of ownership of the said stretch of land. He also submits that in respect of the 17.62 hectares of land the petitioners have not filed any claim and objection, and as such this petition is not maintainable and accordingly, he has contended to dismiss the same. 8. On the other hand Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 11 and 12, submitted that this petition is not at all maintainable and the petition has been prepared in such language which itself amounts to contempt and suo-moto contempt proceeding may be initiated against the petitioners and their counsel. He also submits that 17.62 hectares of land is different from the 66.678 hectares of land and since the petitioners have admittedly not filed any claim and objection before the ADC/DC of the district, now they cannot ask for review of the order dated 19.03.2026, wherein they were not a party and on this count also this petition is liable to be dismissed. He also submits that the petitioners have failed to show existence of any ground for review of the order dated 19.03.2026 and therefore, it has contended to dismiss this petition. 9. Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 also adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 10/11, and he further submitted that the stretch of land measuring 17.62 hectares is different from stretch of land of 68.678 hectares, and that the petitioners and respondents in WP(C) No. 352/2025 and WP(C) No. 247/2025, have amicably settled the dispute and they have also filed affidavits to that effect and as such this review petition is devoid of substance and the same may be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the order under review, dated 19.03.2026. Also gone through the relevant provisions of law. 11. The principles, on which review is permissible, is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. KamleshVerma v. Mayawati and others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, is one of the notable case where Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles as under:- “Summary of the principles 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” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144: (1922) 16 LW 37: AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar BasseliosCatholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] 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. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 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. Page 14 of 28 (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 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.” 11.1. Again in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer and Another, (2024) 2 SCC 362, Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decisions, held as under:- 16. The gist of the aforestated decisions are that: 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 justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, 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. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 12. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners were not a party in writ proceeding, being WP(C) No. 352/2025 and WP(C) No. 247/2025. And on such count, Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 11 and 12 raised the question of maintainability of this review petition by a non party. Therefore, this court has to first address the issue first that: Can a non-party seek review of Court Order? 12.1. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to Section 114 of the CPC which read as under. Section 114, Review (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision a reference from a Court of Small Causes, May apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. 12.2. A plain reading of the section indicates that the key phrase of the said section is 'any person considering himself aggrieved. So, under this section, when any person is ‘aggrieved by the order, whether or not he was party to the proceedings, in which the order had been passed, he can seek review of the said order. 12.3. While dealing with this issue Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in AlR 1997 SC 3277,has held as under:- “4. As stated earlier, the appellant has challenged the impugned seniority list prepared on the basis of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Transfer Application No. 263 of 1986 dated 14-8- 1987, by means of an application under Section 19 of the Act wherein there was no prayer for setting aside the judgment dated 14-8-1987 of the Administrative Tribunal. It is true that the judgment given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in TA No. 263 of 1986 would have come in the way of the appellant. Often in service matters the judgments rendered either by the Tribunal or by the Court also affect other persons, who are not parties to the cases. It may help one class of employees and at the same time adversely affect another class of employees. In such circumstances the judgments of the courts or the tribunals may not be strictly judgments in personam affecting only the parties to the cases, they would be judgments in rem. In such a situation, the question arises: What remedy is available to such affected persons who are not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case adversely affects their rights in the matter of their seniority. In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal is that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to file a review of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Ordinarily, right of review is available only to those who are party to a case. However, even if we give wider meaning to the expression “a person feeling aggrieved” occurring in Section 22 of the Act whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening the whole case has to be decided by the Tribunal. The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to be extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of the party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given cannot monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should be an end to law suits and if the view of the Tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation.” 12.4. Again in the case of Sri Gopa Bandhu Biswal v Krishna Chandra Mohanty and Others, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 447, following the decision in K. Ajit Babu(supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. In the present case, however, it is urged that the four applicants who filed the two review petitions before the Tribunal were not parties to the main petition. They were also not parties to the special leave petition filed before this Court which was dismissed. However they are parties aggrieved and hence are entitled to apply for a review of the main judgment of the Tribunal. It is contended by them that the judgment of the Tribunal holding that the two cadres of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant were a single cadre till 5- 11-1980, has affected the chances of promotion of the applicants and, therefore, the applicants, being persons aggrieved, are entitled to maintain such review petitions when they had not been parties to the earlier judgment as well as the earlier special leave petition. We will assume for the time being that the applicants are persons aggrieved. Even so, the question is whether they can have a judgment which has attained finality by virtue of an order of this Court, set aside in review. There is no doubt that as between the parties to the main judgment, the judgment is final and binding. The respondents, State of Orissa and Union of India, are, therefore, bound to give effect to the judgment of the Tribunal in TA No. 1 of 1989 in the case of GopabandhuBiswal. If this is so, can a third party by filing a review petition get that same judgment reviewed and obtain an order that GopabandhuBiswal is not entitled to the benefits of the directions contained in the main judgment since that judgment is now set aside? In our view this is wholly impermissible. It will lead to reopening a matter which has attained finality by virtue of an order of this Court. The applicants, even if they are persons aggrieved, do not have, in the present case, a right of review under any part of Order 47 Rule 1. Even under Order 47 Rule 1(2), the party not appealing from a decree or order can apply for review only on grounds other than the grounds of appeal which were before the appellate court, and during the pendency of the appeal. In the present case all the grounds which were urged in review were, in fact, urged before the Tribunal at the time when the Tribunal decided the main application and they were also urged by the petitioner in the special leave petition which was filed before this Court. The special leave petition has been dismissed. The same grounds cannot be again urged by way of a review petition by another party who was not a party in the main petition. 11. According to the applicants certain documents though produced before the Tribunal were not noticed by the Tribunal in deciding the main matter. Even so, once a judgment of a Tribunal has attained finality, it cannot be reopened after the special leave petition against that judgment has been dismissed. The only remedy for a person who wants to challenge that judgment is to file a separate application before the Tribunal in his own case and persuade the Tribunal either to refer the question to a larger Bench or, if the Tribunal prefers to follow its earlier decision, to file an appeal from the Tribunal's judgment and have the Tribunal's judgment set aside in appeal. A review is not an available remedy. 12. Undoubtedly when the Tribunal interprets service rules and regulations, the interpretation so given may affect other members of that service — past, present or future. One can understand a wider meaning in this context being given to the phrase “person aggrieved”, thus enlarging the right of persons to intervene either at the hearing before the Tribunal, or in appeal, or for filing a review petition. Nevertheless, this right must be exercised at the appropriate time and in accordance with law. A review petition must be within the scope of Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Order 47 Rule 1 and must comply with the Rules framed under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The present review applications are not within the principles laid down in Order 47 Rule 1. They also do not comply with the relevant Rules. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 prescribes, inter alia, that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed. In the present case the review petitions were filed one and a half years after the main judgment was delivered and one year after the special leave petition was dismissed. We do not find any explanation for this delay.” 12.5. In the case of Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors., reported in (2019) 18 SCC 586, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that a third party can file review if it is 'aggrieved by the order sought to be reviewed. The Court succinctly held thus:- “18. Reverting to the question of whether the Union of India has locus to file the review petition, we must immediately advert to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which, inter alia, postulates that “any person considering himself aggrieved” would have locus to file a review petition. Order 47 CPC restates the position that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court exercises review jurisdiction by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution which predicates that the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Besides, the Supreme Court has framed Rules to govern review petitions. Notably, neither Order 47 CPC nor Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect.” 12.6. Thus, from the aforesaid discussions, the legal proposition, which can be crystallized are as under:- (i) ordinarily a right of review is available only to those who are party to a case, (ii) in circumstances where the oral judgments may also affect other persons, who are not parties to the cases, such judgments being strictly not judgments in personam, affecting only the parties to the cases, a right of review should be available to the aggrieved persons with the leave of the Tribunal/Court on the restricted grounds provided the application is filed within the period of limitation, (iii) the right of review of the decisions of the tribunal or court should be available only on limited grounds mentioned in Order 47, CP.C 12.7. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order under review, they can maintain the petition on the limited grounds mentioned in Order 47 CPC. 13. Now, adverting to the facts of the instant case, this Court finds that admittedly, the petitioners herein had not filed any claim and objection before the ADC/DC of Lower Dibang Valley district in respect of the stretch of land measuring 17.62 hectors, which according to the learned counsel for the respondents herein, is completely different plot of land from that of 68.687 hector of land. Mr. Garam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Nabam, learned Addl. A.G. for the respondent Nos. 4 to 10 and Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 10 and 11, referring to Draft Preliminary Notification, dated 20th June 2025, which relates to 17.62 hectors located at the right bank of Dibang river, and page No. 204, which is Notification No. LMD-13011/1/2021/583, dated 20th June, 2025, and the boundary of the same and location is described herein below :- North :- Private & Community Land South :- Private & Community Land East :- Private & Community Land West :- Private & Community Land Thus, both the parcels of land are two different plots of land and the learned counsel for the respondents have rightly pointed this out at the time of hearing. And this Court finds substance in the same. 13.1. It also appears that in respect of the stretch of land measuring 68.40 hectares, the petitioner, namely, Matheim Linggi, had filed claims and objections and after hearing, the competent authority had rejected the claim due to absence of primary documents. Though Mr. Son, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of the stretch of land measuring 17.62 hectares the petitioners had not filed any written claim and objection, yet verbal claim and objection was made, yet, his submission leaves this Court unimpressed. Another contention of Mr. Son is that the claim of the petitioners was illegally rejected by the ADC/DC, Roing, the said issue cannot be raised in this review petition and also this Court cannot examined the said issue in review petition. The petitioners may seek any appropriate legal remedy available to them to get such issue addressed. 13.2. Notable, the order, being sought to be reviewed was passed on 19.03.2026,in WP(C) No. 352/2025 and WP(C) No. 247/2025, on the basis of submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The same was not decided on merits. No issues raised in the said petitions were adjudicated and no prayers made in the said petitions were allowed. It was submitted at the Bar that the dispute between the parties in both the petitions, has already been settled amicably, and therefore, they have filed a joint application before the Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley, in respect of a plot of land, measuring 66.678 hectares, acquired for the construction of the Dibang Valley Multipurpose Project, by NHPC.It is further submitted at the bar that the parties are not willing to pursue these two writ petitions and as such, the same may be closed by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley, to dispose of the joint application, filed by the petitioners before him, in respect of a plot of land, measuring 17.62 hectares, out of 66.678 hectares. And accordingly, taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and also, in view of amicable settlement of the dispute by the parties, this Court was pleased to close both the writ petitions, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley district, to dispose of the application, jointly filed by both the parties, in respect of the plot of land measuring 17.62 hectares, out of 66.678 hectares. 13.3. Thus, it becomes apparent that both the writ petitions were not adjudicated on merits, rather, the same were disposed of on the ground of the same being compromised by the parties with a direction to dispose of the application jointly filed by the parties. Since the matter is still pending before the DC, then, the petitioners may still raise an objection there. 13.4. Now, the learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents submits that both the stretches of land are different and separate notifications were issued by the competent authority. And as such, the Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley district, may be directed to deal with the joint applications filed by them in terms of the settlement arrived at by the parties and as indicated in the said joint application. 14. Under the given factual as well as legal matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present review petition is not maintainable, for the following reasons:- (i) None of the grounds for maintaining a review petition, as mentioned in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra) and also in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra) could be demonstrated by the review petitioners. (ii) There is no discovery of any 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; (iii) The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iv) The petitioners have also failed to assign any other sufficient reason. 15. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Since the grounds for filing this petition appear to be not bona-fide one, and is also seem to be an abuse of the process of the court and since the tone and tenor of the language used in drafting the petition appear to be derogatory, this Court, while dismissing the same, is also inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only for dissuading him in such misadventure in future. The cost shall be deposited with the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee, Itanagar Permanent Bench, within a period of four weeks from today, by the review petitioner No. 1. 16. Consequent upon dismissal of this review petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley district, shall deal with the joint application filed by the private respondents herein in terms of the settlement arrived at by them and as indicated in the said joint application, as observed in para No.13.3, of this order. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE