The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that its power of review under Article 226 is strictly confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, and does not extend to re-examining its conscious findings or treating a review as an appeal. The judgment upholds established precedent on the narrow contours of review jurisdiction in civil and land acquisition matters, and serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts in Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | C.Rev./12/2025 of SMT. SUMITA BHAGAT (KUJUR) Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, CNR JHHC010000962025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Division Bench (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Land acquisition, civil procedure, scope of review under Article 226 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that the scope of a review is very limited and restricted to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Errors that call for long reasoning or amount to a reappreciation of evidence are not grounds for review. The review jurisdiction is not an appellate power, and satisfaction of the Court after perusing the records, including original documents, cannot be substituted with the subjective satisfaction of the party. The presumption of regular performance of official acts under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act applies, and unless the petitioner demonstrates why such presumption is unwarranted, the review cannot be admitted. Opportunity to peruse records is not a ground for review if the Court has on its own satisfied itself regarding the existence and genuineness of documents. The determination of a legal proposition by the Court cannot be altered in review proceedings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court primarily relied on the principles culled out in Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat regarding the restrictive grounds of review. It further invoked Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act to presume correct performance of official acts. The rationale of Lily Thomas v. Union of India was cited to clarify that review is not to be used for re-hearing or altering legal propositions already decided. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged land acquisition proceedings for her plots, contending that additional land was taken over without due notification and compensation. After writ and appellate proceedings, where the records were called by the High Court and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was found on record and in newspapers, her Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. In review, she argued non-grant of opportunity to peruse original notification records and error in appreciating the mandatory nature of Section 4. The Court examined whether such contentions constitute grounds for review. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court in the context of review jurisdiction |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates that review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction; errors requiring long reasoning or factual reappreciation are not grounds for review.
- The Court reaffirms the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act: judicial and official acts are presumed to be regularly performed unless credibly rebutted.
- Opportunity to peruse original official records is not a prerequisite for a party to seek review if the Court itself has examined and been satisfied with the authenticity of those records.
- The grounds for review are strictly circumscribed to errors apparent on the face of the record; new evidence or mere dissatisfaction with findings are not sufficient.
- Lawyers must ensure that review petitions clearly demonstrate how the case fits within the narrow grounds recognized by precedent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court thoroughly set out the principles regarding scope of review, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, emphasizing that review can only be entertained for errors apparent on the face of the record, and not for errors requiring elaborate argument or reappreciation of facts.
- The Court addressed the petitioner’s contention of not having access to original records regarding newspaper notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Bench found that the records, including newspaper publications, had been placed before and perused by the Court during original adjudication, and satisfaction was recorded regarding compliance.
- The Court applied Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, noting that in absence of evidence to the contrary, official acts (including publication of notifications) are presumed to be duly performed.
- The petitioner failed to show why these presumptions should be displaced, nor was there any error apparent on the face of the record.
- The Bench held that review jurisdiction does not allow for substituting the Court’s conscious finding, nor for substituting party’s subjective dissatisfaction for judicial determination.
- Citing Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the judgment stated that the review jurisdiction is not a means to rehear or alter a legal conclusion already decided.
- The Court thus concluded that no sufficient ground for review was made out and dismissed the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted error apparent on the face of the judgment regarding factual finding of publication of notification under Section 4.
- Alleged denial of opportunity to peruse and verify original records (newspaper publications) which were relied upon by the Court.
- Argued that any acquisition without mandatory notification under Section 4 is invalid.
- Cited legal principles on review jurisdiction and natural justice from several Supreme Court decisions: Ram Sahu, Shivdev Singh, Inderchand Jain, Lily Thomas, and Holicow Pictures.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed the petition, maintaining that there was no error apparent on the record.
- Argued that the findings and satisfaction of the Court in the initial proceedings were based on proper perusal and compliance of statutory requirements.
Factual Background
The petitioner purchased approximately 2.26 acres of land by registered sale deeds in Sarwal village, Namkum, Ranchi, which was duly mutated in her name. Part of her land was acquired for a public project, and compensation paid. She alleged that additional land was encroached by the State without compensation or proper notification. Measurement and official records revealed extra land under construction. Her writ petition seeking compensation was dismissed with liberty to approach authorities. Her subsequent Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed after the Court examined original acquisition records and found notifications had been properly published. The petitioner sought review, primarily challenging the adequacy of opportunity to verify original records and the finding regarding compliance with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly the requirement to publish notification of acquisition in widely circulated newspapers.
- Relied on Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — presumption in favour of regular performance of official/judicial acts.
- The scope of civil review is guided by Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, as incorporated by reference in the Supreme Court’s and High Courts’ jurisprudence (cited Ram Sahu).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were rendered in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates established procedure for condonation of delay in filing review when reasons are adequately shown and no serious objection is raised.
- No new procedural innovations were introduced in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms the well-established legal principles governing the restrictive scope of review jurisdiction as laid down by Supreme Court in Ram Sahu, Lily Thomas, and related cases.