IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6670 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2011. Attar Singh @Attar Khan. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 12.10.2000 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad allowing compensation to the claimant-petitioner in reference petition filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) and for enhancing the amount of compensation as may be enhanced by this Court in appeal filed by other land owners. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned award. CR No.6670 of 2010 Facts relevant for decision of present revision petitioner are that, vide award no.8 dated 29.03.1989 Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of `3,50,000/- per acre of the land acquired under Section 4(1) of the Act. Some of the land owners whose land was acquired alongwith the land of present petitioner filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act before Land Acquisition Collector. Those references were decided by reference court i.e. Additional District Judge, Faridabad enhancing the compensation of acquired land at the rate of `90/- per square yard alongwith other statutory benefits. Present petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation on the basis of judgment rendered in LAC No.131 of 1990-91 vide judgment dated 05.11.1992 rendered in reference filed by some other land owners. However, Land Acquisition Collector dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioner on the ground that the same was filed beyond limitation. Aggrieved against the said order passed by Land Acquisition Collector, present petitioner filed reference under Section 20-A(3) of the Act before learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who allowed the same vide impugned order and held that present petitioner is also entitled for compensation of the acquired land at the enhanced rate of `90/- per square yard. Though no illegality has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad in passing the impugned award, which is in favour of the present petitioner however, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as appeals filed by some other land owners against the award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad are pending before 2 CR No.6670 of 2010 this Court, the present petitioner is also entitled to enhanced compensation on the same rate as would be granted to other land owners. It has been submitted that during pendency of present revision petition appeals of other land owners have been allowed and the compensation of the acquired land has been enhanced. However, so far as the present revision petition is concerned, this Court is only to see as to whether the impugned order dated 12.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad is in any way illegal, warranting interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad in passing the impugned award. Rather the plea of the petitioner was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad and the order was passed in favour of present petitioner. Hence, this Court cannot interfere. It was so held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675: AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” 3 CR No.6670 of 2010 Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 20, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4