New evidence from Google Maps insufficient to prove prior possession for Section 80 interest in review.

The review applicant, K K Commodities LLP, sought a review of a judgment dated May 22, 2025, which had dismissed their appeal against a Single Judge's order denying interest under the 2013 Act

The applicant contended that the Metro Railway took possession of their land prior to the official compensation deposit date of March 3, 2020

To support this, the applicant introduced new evidence in the form of dated Google Maps and photographs, claiming these established that construction by the Metro Railway was underway before the compensation was deposited

The applicant argued that these materials, which were purportedly unavailable during the original hearing, justified a reversal of the judgment to grant interest under Section 80 of the Act

1. Whether the review applicant provided sufficient evidence to establish that possession was taken prior to the deposit of compensation on March 3, 2020, to warrant a review of the earlier judgment

2. Whether the introduction of new evidence (Google Maps) and the re-appreciation of facts constitute valid grounds for review under the established principles of civil procedure

The court's decision was governed by the principles of review under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically the doctrine that a judgment cannot be challenged through a review petition as if it were "an appeal in the garb of a review"

Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which mandates the payment of interest if compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land

The Court examined the documents presented by the applicant and found them insufficient to prove prior possession. A 2013 letter merely showed an "intent to acquire," not the taking of possession

Documents from January 2024 were irrelevant as they post-dated the March 2020 deposit

Regarding the Google Maps, the Court noted that while they showed some construction, they did not conclusively prove that such construction was carried out by the Metro Railway authorities specifically

the Court observed that some of these materials were already accessible or annexed to previous petitions

the Court held that the applicant was essentially seeking a re-hearing of the merits of the case, which exceeds the narrow jurisdiction of a review and enters the realm of an appeal

The holding clarifies that vague photographic evidence from third-party websites (Google Maps) is insufficient to override factual findings regarding land possession, and reaffirming that a review cannot be used to re-litigate the same issues decided in an appeal