MD. FAZAL HAQUE ANSARI AND OTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to make necessary correction in para-8 and 14 para (ii) of the grounds wherein due to

typographical error Second Appeal no. 574 of 2004 has been wrongly mentioned in place of Second Appeal no. 578 of 2004.

Permission accorded.

Learned counsel shall carry out necessary correction in course of the day in red ink.

This petition has been filed with the prayer to review the order dated 20th July, 2017 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) no. 4166 of 2017. Â

Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 in the case of Shivdeo Singh and Others

Vs. State of Punjab and Others and submitted that though the petitioners were not arrayed as a party in W.P.(C) no. 4166 of 2017, however, this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is empowered to review such order which if allowed to subsist will

adversely affect the interest of the parties. It is submitted that the respondent nos. 7 to 11 of the present review petition had preferred W.P.(C) no.

4166 of 2017 for quashing notice dated 12.07.2017 issued by the Circle Officer, Chas, directing the respondents i.e., the petitioners of the aforesaid

writ petition to remove the construction on the land in question and also sought issuance of an order/direction on the respondents to pay the

compensation to the respondents with respect to the land acquired for widening of NH-32.Â

  Learned counsel has contended the petitioners have a subsisting right, title and interest in the said lands and the dispute with respect to the

right/title between the parties is to be adjudicated in Second Appeal no.578 of 2004, pending before this High Court. It is argued that respondent nos. 7

to 11 had filed Title Suit no.14 of 1989 against the petitioners and others for declaration of their right, title and confirmation of permanent possession

with respect to land of Khata no.27, Plot no. 187 Dhanbad Pargana, P.S. Chas. That the said title suit was decreed, whereupon the defendants

preferred Title Appeal no.23 of 2000 and the first appellate court had set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, which has been challenged

in the Second Appeal no. 578 of 2004.Â

   Learned senior counsel has submitted that this Court by the order had directed for release of payment of the award. It is submitted that by the

said order in a way compensation has been ordered to be awarded in favour of the respondents and the fact that the lis of title is a subject-matter to

be adjudicated in the second appeal had not been disclosed by the respondent nos. 7 to 11 neither did they implead the present petitioners in W.P. (C).

No. 4166 of 2017

On the above grounds, it is urged that the respondents have obtained the order by misrepresentation and by suppression of the material facts. It is

submitted that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and the order requires to be reviewed for the aforesaid reasons.Â

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of the private respondents has contended that W.P.(C) no. 4166 of 2017 was filed by the

respondents with a prayer for issuance of appropriate direction/order for quashing the notice dated 12.07.2017, whereby the petitioners were directed

to remove the construction on the land which was acquired by National Highways Authority of India for widening of the road. It is urged that the

notice establishes the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the said land accordingly, the award was prepared in the name of the petitioners

i.e., respondents private parties. It is contended that by the order dated 20.07.2017 this Court has not adjudicated the right, title and interest of the

respondents rather by the said order, the competent authority has been directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law on the

representation filed by the petitioners i.e., the respondents, for disbursement of the award. It is urged that there is no error apparent on the face of the

order moreover, in terms of Order XLVII Rule 1, an order can be reviewed when such order suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of

the record.Â

Heard. No doubt, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is empowered to review an order to prevent

miscarriage of justice. The underlying principle is that when an error is apparent on the face of the record, the order can be reviewed to prevent

miscarriage of justice. The petitioners have admitted in para-12 of the present review petition that they have also filed a representation before the

competent authority. It is explicit that this Court had directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation filed

by the respondents (petitioners of W.P.(C) no. 4166 of 2017) in accordance with law with respect to the award. No direction was given that the

award should be released in favour of the respondents/petitioners. It cannot be said that by the said order any injustice has been caused to the

petitioners. It is well settled position that a review cannot be a disguise in appeal. It is evident from the averments made in the present petition that the

petitioners are seeking a direction and observation by the Court on the disputed question of title which is not tenable in law.

In the attending facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition is sans merit and is, hereby, dismissed.