-
by sayum
25 August 2026 12:32 PM
Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Piyush Agrawal dismissed a review application filed by the petitioners, Chetram @ Mintu and Others, seeking reconsideration of the court’s previous judgment denying enhanced compensation for their acquired land. The court upheld its earlier judgment of April 22, 2022, finding no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence.
The petitioners owned land in Village Sadarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, which was acquired by the State Government through notifications issued on March 30, 2002, and June 28, 2003 for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The petitioners sought enhanced compensation for their acquired land, invoking the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Gajraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB), which granted higher compensation to certain landowners in the region.
However, their writ petition was dismissed by the court on April 22, 2022, on the grounds that the Gajraj Singh ruling did not apply to their case, as the petitioners had sold their land through sale deeds executed in November 2001, prior to the acquisition notifications. The petitioners subsequently filed a review application, seeking reconsideration of this judgment.
Grounds for Review: The petitioners argued that the court failed to appreciate that their case fell under the scope of the Gajraj Singh ruling, as the land was part of the same village and covered by the acquisition notifications. They also cited earlier decisions, including Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., in support of their claim for additional compensation.
NOIDA's Opposition: Counsel for NOIDA contended that the petitioners had sold their land through sale deeds in November 2001, well before the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. The petitioners had already received full payment for the land through mutual negotiation, making them ineligible for additional compensation. NOIDA further argued that the petitioners had misled the court by trying to claim compensation they were not entitled to.
The court emphasized the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that review applications can only be entertained on grounds of:
Discovery of new evidence, which was not available despite due diligence,
Error apparent on the face of the record, or
Any other sufficient reason analogous to the above.
The court ruled that the petitioners failed to meet any of these grounds:
The sale deeds executed in November 2001 were clear evidence that the petitioners had transferred their land before the acquisition notifications, and they had already received compensation.
There was no error apparent on the face of the record, as the court had properly considered the applicability of the Gajraj Singh decision in its earlier judgment.
The court reiterated that review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to reargue the merits of the case.
The court referred to several key judgments outlining the scope of review jurisdiction:
Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 – Review is permissible to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, but not to re-examine the merits.
Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala K. Chaudhary, 1995 (1) SCC 170 – Review must be confined to errors that are self-evident and do not require detailed reasoning.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 – Review powers cannot be used to substitute one view for another or to reargue the case.
The review application was dismissed, and the court affirmed its earlier judgment of April 22, 2022, which had denied the petitioners' claim for enhanced compensation. The court held that the petitioners' land had been sold to NOIDA in November 2001, prior to the acquisition notifications, and that the Gajraj Singh ruling did not entitle them to additional compensation.
Date of Decision: October 18, 2024
Chetram @ Mintu and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
