A quashed diversion-cancellation proceeding cannot sustain review of enhanced compensation.

The State sought review under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC of an order dated 18 February 2025 dismissing its first appeal concerning compensation.

It argued that cancellation of the land-diversion order was material to valuation and had not been considered when the appeal was decided; the respondents opposed review, including on the ground that the relevant cancellation proceedings had subsequently been quashed by the High Court.

The Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition, attributing it to administrative process and applying the liberal approach to condonation of delay in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji.

Whether the State established a ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to review the order dismissing its first appeal, based on the asserted non-consideration of the diversion-related material.

Whether the State demonstrated that the material relied on in review could not, despite due diligence, have been produced when the first appeal was decided.

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC confines review to discovery of new and important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was unavailable at the relevant time; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

Relying on S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, (2024) 20 SCC 188, and the principles stated in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Paulose Athanasius, the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal and that new evidence must be both previously unavailable despite due diligence and material enough to potentially affect the decision.

The Court also referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji in allowing the delay application.

The Court found no sufficient basis to reopen the first appeal.

Even assuming the diversion-related fact had not been placed before the Court, the State had not shown that it was unavailable despite due diligence; the Court also observed that the State’s counsel had failed to bring it to the Court’s attention, which alone did not establish a review ground.

Further, the Court considered the subsequent writ-court order quashing the relevant diversion notice and consequential proceedings, and concluded that no valid review ground remained.

It held that the State had not established any ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.