Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Order Date: 13 August 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: NTPC Ltd., Darliparlli (represented by Sr. Advocate A.N. Das and Advocate N. Sarkar).
- Opposite Parties: Parameswar Patel & others (RVWPET 172) and Kunjabana Patel & others (RVWPET 173).
- Review petitions filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the common judgment dated 12 April 2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.
- The Division Bench had quashed two 2015 orders (IA Misc. Case No. 09 of 2015 and LA Misc. Case No. 07 of 2015) that rejected NTPC’s claim for extension of benefits under the Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy, 2006, and directed the Land Acquisition Collector and Officer to instruct the General Manager, NTPC, Darlipalli to extend benefits to a family member within three months.
- Grounds raised in the review petitions: (i) error apparent on the face of the record concerning the year of land‑conversion application (2009 vs. 2012); (ii) use of the term “ordinarily resident” of Darlipalli; (iii) classification of the petitioners as a “displaced family”.
- Counsel argued that these were factual errors not raised during the original proceedings.
Court Reasoning
- The Court noted that review jurisdiction is limited to three grounds: discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
- It observed that the alleged factual error regarding the conversion year was known to the petitioners at the time of the original judgment; the senior counsel had appeared in the writ petitions without raising it, indicating it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record.
- The term “ordinarily resident” was addressed by the Division Bench in paragraph 12 of the judgment; therefore, it does not constitute a reviewable error.
- The finding that the petitioners were a “displaced family” was based on a detailed survey of facts and law (paragraph 13) and was not erroneous.
- The Court emphasized that the petitioners appeared to use the review mechanism to invoke appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible.
- Since no ground for review was established, the petitions were deemed non‑maintainable. The Court also noted the petitions were filed three days beyond the prescribed limitation period but found no need to issue a limitation notice as the petitions were dismissed on merit.
Final Outcome
- Both review petitions (RVWPET 172/2024 and RVWPET 173/2024) are dismissed as devoid of merit.
- No order as to costs was made.
Topics: Court Proceedings, R&R Policy