Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a review petition filed by Baswareddy against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2013 in MFA No.30912/2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. In the original appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court had set aside the reference court award and enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,30,000/- per acre for the acquired land. The petitioner contended that the court had failed to consider Ex.P.9, a sale deed pertaining to land in Chitta village, and Ex.P.10, an award in respect of land in Mirzapur village, which were allegedly comparable to the acquired land and would have justified higher compensation. The petitioner had initially filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to file the present review petition. The State of Karnataka and the Vice Chancellor of the Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Science University were the respondents. The core legal issue was whether the review petition was maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner argued that the exhibits demonstrated comparable sales and that the court’s failure to properly appreciate them constituted an error. The respondents opposed the review. The court, after analyzing the principles governing review jurisdiction as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, and other precedents, held that review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review is not an appeal in disguise; re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible, and a mere possibility of a different view is insufficient. The court examined the original judgment and noted that in paragraphs 9 and 10, it had expressly considered Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 and given cogent reasons for holding that the lands were not comparable. Consequently, there was no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason justifying review. Applying the ejusdem generis rule, the court clarified that 'any other sufficient reason' must be analogous to the specified grounds. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed, confirming the earlier compensation award.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Scope and Grounds - Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner sought review of an earlier appellate order that enhanced compensation for acquired land, contending that certain exhibits were not properly considered. The court reiterated that review jurisdiction is narrow; it is not an appeal and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Grounds are limited to discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or 'any other sufficient reason' which must be analogous to the specified grounds under the ejusdem generis principle. The original judgment had already examined the exhibits and found the lands not comparable. Held, no error apparent on face of record was demonstrated, and mere disagreement with the earlier conclusion does not justify review. The review petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition is maintainable and whether the High Court should review its earlier judgment dated 25.02.2013 in MFA No.30912/2012 on the ground that Ex.P.9 and P.10 were not properly appreciated.
Final Decision
Review petition dismissed. The court held that the scope of review jurisdiction is limited, and the original judgment had already appreciated the evidence and found the lands not comparable. No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated, and no other sufficient reason existed to review the order.
Law Points
- review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction
- review is not appeal
- grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are discovery of new matter
- error apparent on face of record
- or any other sufficient reason analogous thereto
- re-appreciation of evidence not permissible
- mere possibility of two views not ground for review
- error apparent must be manifest and not require fishing
- ejusdem generis principle applies to 'any other sufficient reason'
