Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue alleged errors in appreciation of facts or law.

The petitioners claimed to be “displaced families” affected by projects undertaken by Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (MCL), Angul.

Pursuant to an earlier direction in W.P.(C) No. 6872 of 2023, the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul considered their representation but, by order dated 10 January 2024 in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2023, rejected their claim for recognition as displaced families and consequential rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petitioners challenged that order in W.P.(C) No. 15937 of 2024, which was dismissed on 9 July 2024 after the Court found no merit in their challenge.

They thereafter filed the present review petition, contending that the Court had failed to consider material aspects supporting their claim and had overlooked alleged legal errors in the Collector’s interpretation of the 2013 Act.

Whether the order dated 9 July 2024 dismissing the writ petition disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason warranting review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Whether the petitioners’ allegations of erroneous appreciation of the facts and law, and non-consideration of material aspects, could be used to reopen the merits of the writ petition in review jurisdiction?

Review jurisdiction is governed by Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review may be sought on the grounds of discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

Relying on Kamalesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise; repetition of previously rejected arguments, mere disagreement with appreciation of evidence, the possibility of another view, or an alleged error requiring elaborate examination does not justify review.

The Court also relied on Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674, and the decisions in Kishore Biswal v. Union of India, Prasanna Kumar Gawn v. State of Odisha, and Chief Executive Officer In-charge, The Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nilakantha Dash, for the principle that review is an exceptional remedy available only for a patent mistake, glaring omission, or other grave error causing miscarriage of justice.

The Court examined the review petition against the restrictive standards governing review jurisdiction.

It found that the petitioners were, in substance, seeking reconsideration of the merits of their claim that they qualified as displaced families and challenging the Court’s earlier appreciation of the Collector’s order.

Such a plea amounted to an assertion of erroneous appreciation of facts and law, rather than identification of a self-evident error or discovery of new material.

The petitioners also failed to plead or establish any statutory ground for review and were unable to demonstrate that the earlier order contained an error apparent on the face of the record or resulted in miscarriage of justice.

The Court therefore held that even an allegedly erroneous decision would not, by itself, justify review unless it satisfied the established review standards.

It held that the review petition merely sought a rehearing and reappreciation of the issues decided in the writ petition, without establishing discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed for lack of merit, with costs made easy.