1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 370/2009 in Writ Petition No. 1495/88. 1. Yadurai s/o Pragji Sanghani (Dead), 2. Jagat Kumar s/o Yadurai Sanghani Aged about 55 years. 3. Jaishree w/o Jagat Kumar Sanghani Aged about 51 years. All R/o Jagat Restaurant,Abhayankar Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. ..Applicants./ Original Petitioners .vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Through its Chairman, Improvement Trust Office, Sadar, Nagpur. ..Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. M.G.Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.K.Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & P.B.VARALE,JJ DATE OF RESERVING : 16.07.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.08.2010 Heard Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants/ petitioners and Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application, the applicants/petitioners seek review 2` of the Judgment and order dated 13.02.2009 passed by this Court by which writ petition was dismissed. 3. The applicants/ petitioners filed the above writ petition challenging the letter of respondent Trust dated 3.2.1988 and endorsement below the Award dated 5.9.1986 by which the applicants/ petitioners were directed to hand over their plots forthwith. The further relief to implement the Resolution dated 3.2.1982/ 17.2.1982 and the agreement dated 22.10.1984 entered between the parties was sought. 4. The applicants/ petitioners filed the above petition as the owners of the plots of land bearing serial nos. 4,5,6, 7 and 25 situated in Ward No. 3 of Sitabuldi opposite City Bus Terminal, Sitabuldi Nagpur. Pursuant to the scheme framed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust ('The NIT' for short) in terms of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936,('the Act' for short) the NIT was entitled to acquire the lands by resorting to the provisions of the Act. The plots of the applicants/ petitioners fell within the scheme. The notification under Section 39 of the Act was issued on 19.2.1970 and the notification under Section 45 of the Act was issued on 3` 24.10.1974. The award came to be passed on 5.9.1986. It was further the case of the applicants/ petitioners that there was a meeting between the applicants/ petitioners and the Trust in the year 1982 and an agreement was entered into on 22.10.1984 for which certain terms and conditions were agreed between the parties. After passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the applicants/petitioners were aggrieved by the endorsement made below the award directing the applicants/ petitioners to hand over the possession of the plots. The applicants/ petitioners were also aggrieved by the communication dated 3.2.1988 of the respondent calling upon the petitioners/ applicants to hand over the possession of the properties to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 5. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel then appearing for the petitioners made only one submission, that is, in terms of the agreement dated 22.10.1984 and the Resolutions passed earlier the petitioners were not bound to hand over the possession of the plots to the Special Land Acquisition Officer since as per the agreement handing over of the possession of the plots to the respondent and re-delivery of the possession of reconstituted plot by the respondent to the petitioners was simultaneous and as such delivery of possession was only a paper 4` transaction. The petitioners/applicants, therefore, contended that they were not bound to hand over the possession of the properties to the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. The respondent contended that the petitioners were bound to hand over the possession to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in terms of the award and the petitioners were in fact seeking implementation of the Resolution by filing writ petition. This court by Judgment and order dated 13.2.2009 held that the agreement did not stipulate that the possession of the plots need not be handed over to the respondent and that the delivery of the possession was not only a paper transaction as contended by the petitioners. This Court also held that once the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the petitioners were bound to hand over the possession of the plots to the said Officer and in the absence of any challenge to the award the reliefs sought by the petitioners were not available to the petitioners. 7. Mr. Bhangde, learned senior counsel for the applicants/petitioners submitted that in terms of the agreement dated 22.10.1984 delivery of the re-constituted plot was supposed to 5` be simultaneous and this aspect has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment. According to Mr. Bhangde, no reasons have been given for holding that the agreement does not stipulate simultaneous delivery of the reconstituted plot. Mr. Bhangde further submitted that it was not necessary for the petitioners to challenge the award and no issue regarding challenge to the award was raised by the respondent and as such the finding given by this court on the said issue that in the absence of challenge to the award the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought for was warranted. According to Mr. Bhangde, this court did not consider the agreement in correct perspective and recorded a finding that it was necessary to challenge the award. According to Mr. Bhangde, the respondents had suppressed material fact that the respondents were not in a position to deliver the reconstituted plot since the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of portion of the reconstituted plot which was required to be handed over to the petitioners had lapsed. Mr. Bhangde, therefore, submitted that the fraud was played on this court and this itself is a ground to review the judgment and order. Mr. Bhangde, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and order discloses errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order and otherwise serious prejudice would be 6` caused to the applicants/ petitioners. In support of his submissions, Mr. Bhangde relied upon the following judgments. i) Board of Control for Cricket, India and another .vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others. AIR 2005 Supreme Court, 592. ii) Ram Phal vs. State of Haryana and others. (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 258. iii) A.V.Papayya Sastry and others .vs. Government of A.P. And others. (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 221. iv) Ramchandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others (2003) 8Supreme Court Cases, 319. v) Rajender Singh vs. Lt.Governnor,Andaman & Nicobar Islands and others. (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases, 289. vi) S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 464. vii) State of Orissa and others .vs. Harapriya Bisoi 2009 (6) SCALE 415. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned Judgment and order and submitted that the scope of review jurisdiction was very limited and no case was made 7` out for review of the Judgment. Mr. Mishra further submitted that in the present case the applicants/petitioners have not made out any case for grant of relief. According to Mr. Mishra, the only argument advanced in support of the petition on behalf of the petitioners was that the petitioners were not required to hand over the possession of the plot to the respondent in view of the resolutions passed by the respondent and agreement entered into between the parties and this court having held against the applicants/ petitioners no case for grant of review is made out. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mishra relied upon following judgments. I) M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi. AIR 1980 Supreme Court, 674. ii) Parsion Devi and others .vs. Sumitri Devi and others. JT 1997(8) Supreme Court, 480. 9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 10. Before dealing with the submissions on merits we shall deal with the authorities cited by both sides. 8` 11. In the case of Board of Control for Cricket, India (supra) the Apex Court held that a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47,Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. In the case of Ram Phal (supra) the Apex Court held that giving of the satisfactory reasons while disposing of the matter is necessary. In the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry (supra) the Apex Court held that an order obtained by successful party by playing fraud is vitiated and is non existent and non est and as such can not be allowed to stand. In the case of Ramchandra Singh (supra) the Apex Court held that the fraud vitiates every solemn act. In the case of Rajender Singh (supra) the Apex Court held that the law was well settled that the power of judicial review of its own orders by the High Court inheres in every court of jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice and such power extends to correct 9` all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The courts should not hesitate to review their own orders when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases. In the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal (supra) the Apex Court held that an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. In the case of State of Orissa v.s Harapriya Bisoi (supra) the Apex Court reiterated that suppression of material documents would also amount to a fraud on the court by placing reliance upon the earlier Judgments of the Apex Court. 12. In the case of M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. (supra) relied by Mr. Mishra, the Apex court while dealing with the application for review of the Judgment dated 7.9.1978 held that it was well settled that the party was not entitled to seek review of the Judgment delivered by the Court merely for the purpose of re-hearing and fresh decision of the court. The normal principle is that the Judgment pronounced by the court is final and departure from that 10` principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. The Apex Court referred to its various earlier judgments. In the said Judgment Krishna Iyer,J concurring with other two learned Judges observed that “a plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. “ In the case of Parsion Devi (supra) it was held that review proceedings have to be strictly considered within the ambit and scope of order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.. 13. We shall now deal with the rival submissions in the light of above rulings of the Apex Court. 14. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the only point urged by the learned counsel who was appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition was that in terms of the agreement the transfer of possession of the plot to the respondent was only on paper and it was not necessary for the petitioners to hand over the possession. No other argument was advanced in support of the petition. This Court held that since the award was passed and the same was not 11` challenged the petitioners were duty bound first to hand over the possession of the property and as such they could not contend that the delivery of the possession to the respondent was a paper transaction in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. This Court further held that the petitioners were in fact seeking implementation of the Resolutions/ agreement by filling the petition which was not permissible. 15. We had given the above findings in the Judgment after making reference to the relevant clauses in the agreement dated 22.10.1984 which are mentioned in para 4 of the Judgment which is sought to be reviewed. In our considered opinion, this court upon interpretation of the clauses in the agreement and legal provisions held that the petitioners were bound to hand over the possession and in the absence of any challenge to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs sought for. In view of the admitted position that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed an Award in respect of the plots of the applicants/ petitioners, the applicants/ petitioners were bound to deliver possession of the plots to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is well settled that once an award is passed the 12` possession of the acquired land has to be handed over to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were not bound to hand over the possession of the plots to the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no merit. Consequently, the applicants/ petitioners could not insist that the respondent trust should simultaneously hand over reconstituted plots to the applicants/ petitioners. The finding given by this Court that in the absence of any challenge to the award the applicants/ petitioners were bound to hand over the possession of the plots to the Land Acquisition Officer was given considering the legal provisions. In our view, the findings given by this Court in the impugned Judgment do not disclose errors apparent on the face of record. 16. Insofar as the authorities relied upon by Mr. Bhangde are concerned, the propositions set out therein are well settled. However, in our view, the said Judgments do not advance the case of the applicants/petitioners having regard to the factual back ground. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhangde, the learned senior counsel that no reasons have been given in the Judgment while giving findings in the writ petition. Similarly, the case of fraud alleged by the applicants/petitioners was never pleaded and there 13` was absolutely no reason for the applicants/ petitioners not to place the relevant materials before this Court justifying the fraud, if any, on the part of the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the writ petition was filed in the year 1988 and the same was disposed of in the year 2009. The applicants/ petitioners had sufficient time to produce all the materials in support of the relief sought for in the petition. The applicants/ petitioners having chosen not to place the same during the pendency of the petition, the applicants/ petitioners now can not be permitted to reopen the issue in proceedings for review. As stated above, the only one submission was made on behalf of the petitioners in the petition and naturally we dealt with the said submission and gave findings thereon. It is well settled that in writ petition the petitioner is entitled to raise several grounds in support of the reliefs sought in the petition but at the time of final hearing he can restrict his challenge to only one ground and if he chooses to do so he can not be permitted to reopen the issue by urging some of the grounds not pressed during the hearing of the petition or by urging new grounds in review proceedings. In our considered opinion, therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the applicants/ petitioner have no merit. 17. Mr. Mishra is right in placing reliance upon the Judgment in 14` the case of M/s Northern India Caterers (India). We have already referred to the ratio laid down in the said case. In the said case, the Apex court held that when meals were served in the restaurant to non-residents or casual visitors of a hotel run by the Northern India Caterers (India) Limited the service must be regarded as providing for the satisfaction of a human need and could not be regarded as constituting a sale of food. The Apex Court held that if the material which was placed along with the application for review had been placed earlier, it would have enabled the court to consider the further aspect of the problem and examine it more comprehensively. But having regard to the basis on which the appeals proceeded the Apex Court was unable to hold that the result would necessarily have been different. 18. In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the said case is squarely applicable in the present case. The applicants/ petitioners having not urged the grounds which have been urged in the review application, at the time of hearing of the petition now cannot be allowed to seek review of the Judgment and order and invite fresh decision from this Court. In our considered view, the Judgment and order dated 13.2.2009 passed by this court does not disclose any 15` error apparent on the face of record. We, therefore, find no merit in the present application for review. Consequently, the same is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle