The State of Assam and 3 Ors v. Navin Kumar Goenka and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 04.12.2024

Heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. R. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents.

¶2WP(C) 2789/2019 had been filed seeking a direction to be issued to the review petitioners to give the necessary sale/alienation permission, for sale of apartments, as the sale transactions for the sale of apartments could not be completed, due to the inaction of the review petitioners in not granting the required sale/alienation permission.

¶3This Court, vide order dated 04.08.2021 passed in WP(C) 2789/2019, directed the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner, Dibrugarh to take steps as per the Government Circular No. RSS.573/94/25 dated 26.03.2001 and after obtaining the necessary approval from the Government, the sale permission applied by the petitioners should be taken for consideration as per the relevant law/rules, holding the fields.

¶4The review petitioners have filed this present review petition on

25.04.2024, i.e., nearly after 2 years and 8 months of the impugned order dated

04.08.2021.

¶5The counsel for the review petitioners submits that the order dated

04.08.2021 passed in WP(C) 2789/2019 needs to be reviewed, as the said impugned order is not implementable, in terms of Section 4(2) of the Assam Page No.# 6/9 Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), besides the other provisions of the above said Act. He submits that the land of the writ petitioners is tea plantation land and as such, the sale/alienation permission cannot be given to the said land in terms of the Act.

¶6Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the review petitioners further submits that a series of notifications and office memorandums have been issued by the Government of Assam, barring the grant of sale permission of land, which is a part of a tea plantation, which is covered by a tea periodic patta. He submits that those notifications and office memorandums are a part of the review petition as Annexure-D series (page 162 to 185).

¶7The review petitioners' counsel submits that the above office memorandum and the notification could not be produced by the review petitioners at the time of disposal of WP(C) 2789/2019, due to inadvertence. He accordingly submits that the direction passed by this Court in the impugned order is an error apparent on the face of the records.

¶8Mr. R. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, on the other hand, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the review petitioners are only attempting to rehear the matter. He also submits that the stand of the review petitioners that no sale permission/alienation permission can be given to tea plantation land is incorrect, inasmuch as, the Government Circular No. RSS.573/94/25 dated 26.03.2021, which was to be applied by the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner, for disposing of the case of the writ petitioners, allows for grant of sale permission and alienation of tea garden land for any other use. He also submits that various notifications, which are at Page No.# 7/9 page 122 to 128 of the review petition, are examples of sale/alienation permission given by the respondent authorities and notifications, which allows for grant of sale/alienation permission of tea garden land. He accordingly submits that as there being no error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition should be dismissed.

¶9I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶10The arguments advanced by both the parties goes to show that the entire matter would have to be re-heard and decided afresh, if all the submissions made by the parties and the documents that they are relying upon, are again taken into consideration.

¶11In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Supreme Court has held that a review cannot partake the character of an appeal.

¶12The stand of the review petitioners that the provisions of the Act do not provide for the grant of sale permission or permission to alienate tea garden land, for any other use, requires this Court to go into the provisions of the Act at length and that exercise, in the view of this Court would not come within the meaning of review, as provided in the CPC and the laws settled by the Supreme Court.

¶13In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Supreme Court has given the gist of various Supreme Court's decision with regard to the power of review, to enable Courts to examine Page No.# 8/9 whether a case of review has been made out.

¶14In para 16 of the above judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:

16.1. A judgment is open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.2. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

16.5. A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-Page No.# 9/9 ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

¶15Keeping in view the settled position with regard to whether a case of review has been made out by the review petitioners, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, which is self evident. The question whether the impugned order is implementable is an issue which has to be examined by looking into various notifications, OMs and the various provisions of the Act and as such, this Court is of the view that the present review would require a re-hearing of the entire case and a process of reasoning, in respect of an issue already decided by the impugned order. This Court is accordingly of the view that no case of review has been made out.

¶16In view of the reasons stated above, the review petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/9 GAHC010081202024 ooooooo undefined ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oReview.Pet./64/2024o THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,o REVENUEoANDoDISASTERoMANAGEMENToDEPTT.,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-o6. 2:oDIRECTORoOFoLANDoRECORSoANDoSURVEYS oASSAMoRUPANAGARoGUWAHATI-o32. 3:oTHEoDISTRICToCOMMISSIONER oDIST.-oDIBRUGARHoASSAMoPIN-o786003. 4:oTHEoCIRCLEoOFFICE oDIBRUGARHoREVENUEoCIRCLE oDIST.-oDIBRUGARHoASSAMoPIN-o786003o VERSUSo NAVINoKUMARoGOENKAoANDo3oORS.o S/O-oLATEoBAJRANGLALoAGARWALLAo(GOENKA),oR/O-oGOENKAoMARKET, R.K.B.oPATH,oP.S.oANDoDIST-oDIBRUGARH,oASSAM,oPIN-o786001.o REP.oBYoCONSTITUTEDoATTORNEY,oSRIoABHISHEKoSINGH,oAGEDo35o YEARS,oS/O-oSRIoASHOKoSINGHo(POWERoOFoATTOENEYoNO.o719oDATEDo 20.11.2012),oR/O-oVILL-oNO.o3oBAMHUKUTA,oP.O.oANDoP.S.oDULIAJAN,oDIST-o DIBRUGARH,oASSAM,oPIN-o786602.oPARTNER,oM/SoAMARoCONSTRUCTIONo COMPANY,oHAVINGoITSoOFFICEoATo101,oPRAFULLAoRESIDENCY,o CHOWKIDHINGEE,oDIBRUGARH,oASSAM,oPIN-o786003. 2:RANJEETAoKESHAN oW/O-oSRIoPRADIPoKR.oKESHAN oR/O-oSANTIPARA oP.O.oANDoDIST-oDIBRUGARH oASSAMoPIN-o786001.o REP.oBYoCONSTITUTEDoATTORNEY oSRIoABHISHEKoSINGH oAGEDo35oYEARS PageoNo.#o2/9 oS/O-oSRIoASHOKoSINGHo(POWERoOFoATTOENEYoNO.o719oDATEDo20.11.2012) oR/O-oVILL-oNO.o3oBAMHUKUTA oP.O.oANDoP.S.oDULIAJAN oDIST-oDIBRUGARH oASSAM oPIN-o786602.oPARTNER oM/SoAMARoCONSTRUCTIONoCOMPANY oHAVINGoITSoOFFICEoATo101 oPRAFULLAoRESIDENCY oCHOWKIDHINGEE oDIBRUGARH oASSAMoPIN-o786003. 3:SANDEEPoKEDIA oR/O-oNALIAPOOL oP.O.oANDoDIST-oDIBRUGARH oASSAMoPIN-o786001.o REP.oBYoCONSTITUTEDoATTORNEY oSRIoABHISHEKoSINGH oAGEDo35oYEARS oS/O-oSRIoASHOKoSINGHo(POWERoOFoATTOENEYoNO.o719oDATEDo20.11.2012) oR/O-oVILL-oNO.o3oBAMHUKUTA oP.O.oANDoP.S.oDULIAJAN oDIST-oDIBRUGARHoASSAM oPIN-o786602.oPARTNER oM/SoAMARoCONSTRUCTIONoCOMPANY oHAVINGoITSoOFFICEoATo101 oPRAFULLAoRESIDENCY oCHOWKIDHINGEE oDIBRUGARH oASSAMoPIN-o786003. 4:M/SoBANWARIoLALoSANDEEPoKUMAR oH.U.F. oREP.oBYoBANWARILALoKEDIA oKARTAoR/O-oNALIAPOOL oP.O.oANDoDIST-oDIBRUGARH oASSAM oPIN-o786001.oREP.oBYoCONSTITUTEDoATTORNEY oSRIoABHISHEKoSINGH oAGEDo35oYEARS oS/O-oSRIoASHOKoSINGHo(POWERoOFoATTOENEYoNO.o719oDATEDo20.11.2012) oR/O-oVILL-oNO.o3oBAMHUKUTA oP.O.oANDoP.S.oDULIAJAN oDIST-oDIBRUGARHoASSAM oPIN-o786602.oPARTNER oM/SoAMARoCONSTRUCTIONoCOMPANY oHAVINGoITSoOFFICEoATo101 Page No.# 3/9 PRAFULLA RESIDENCY CHOWKIDHINGEE DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORPUJARI, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT Advocate for the Respondent : MR R CHAKRAVORTY (R-1,2,3,4), S RABHA(R-1,2,3,4) Linked Case : WP(C)/2789/2019 NAVIN KUMAR GOENKA AND 3 ORS. S/O- LT BAJRANGLAL AGARWALLA (GOENKA) R/O- GOENKA MARKET R.K.B. PATH P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SRI ABHISHEK SINGH S/O- SRI ASHOK SINGH (DEED NO. 719 DATED 20.11.2012) R/O- VILL- NO. 3 BAMHUKUTA P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PARTNER M/S AMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 101 PRAFULLA RESIDENCY CHOWKIDHINGEE DIBRUGARH ASSAM 2: RANJEETA KESHAN W/O- SRI PRADIP KR. KESHAN R/O- SANTIPARA P.O. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SRI ABHISHEK SINGH S/O- SRI ASHOK SINGH (DEED NO. 719 DATED 20.11.2012) R/O- VILL- NO. 3 BAMHUKUTA P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PARTNER M/S AMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 101 PRAFULLA RESIDENCY CHOWKIDHINGEE DIBRUGARH ASSAM 3: SANDEEP KEDIA R/O- NALIAPOL PageoNo.#o4/9 oP.O.oANDoDIST-oDIBRUGARH oREP.oBYoTHEIRoCONSTITUTEDoATTORNEY oSRIoABHISHEKoSINGH oS/O-oSRIoASHOKoSINGHo(DEEDoNO.o719oDATEDo20.11.2012) oR/O-oVILL-oNO.o3oBAMHUKUTA oP.O.oANDoP.S.oDULIAJAN oDIST-oDIBRUGARHoASSAM oPARTNER oM/SoAMARoCONSTRUCTIONoCOMPANY oHAVINGoITSoOFFICEoATo101oPRAFULLAoRESIDENCY oCHOWKIDHINGEE oDIBRUGARHoASSAM o4:oM/SoBANAWARIoLALoSANDEEPoKUMAR H.U.F.oREP.oBYoSRIoBANWARILALoKEDIA oKARTAoR/O-oNALIAPOOL oP.O.oANDoDIST-oDIBRUGARH oREP.oBYoTHEIRoCONSTITUTE