AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Pranjal Das, J)tra
Heard Ms. S.B Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S Roy, learned CGC for the respondent No.1; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 4; Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Forest Department for the respondent No. 3, 5, 6, 11 & 12.
The review petitioners have contended that the review petitioners had filed the Writ Appeal bearing WA No. 235/2026, challenging the judgment and order dated 08/06/2026 delivered by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1628/2026 alongwith a series analogous cases, whereby the review petitioners/appellants were declared encroachers of Lutumai Reserve Forest Land.
That, when the above noted writ appeal was listed for admission in the Vacation Court on 02/07/2026, it was submitted that the said writ appeal is covered by the Order dated 25/06/2026, passed in WA No. 211/2026, WA No. 212/2026, WA No. 216/2026, WA No. 219/2026, order dated 26/06/2026 in WA No. 225/2026 as well as order dated 30/06/2026 in WA No. 233/2026.
It is now contended that the learned counsel for the present review petitioners/appellants committed a bona fide mistake by inadvertently admitting that the WA No. 235/2026 is also covered by the aforesaid order. Accordingly, the same was also disposed of by this Court in the light of the aforesaid orders of the Co-ordinate Bench.
The review petitioners contended that subsequently after thoroughly going through the order dated 25/06/2026 in WA No. 211/2026 alongwith batch of cases, it has been found that the case of the present review petitioners/appellants is not covered by the said order. Those cases are related to “Taungya” whereas the review petitioners do not belong to that group.
When the writ appeal was listed for admission hearing on 02/07/2026, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the writ appeal is covered by the order dated 08/06/2026 passed in WP(C) No. 1628/2026.
Accordingly, the writ appeal was disposed of in terms of the common judgment and orders dated 25/06/2026 passed in WA No. 211/2026, WA No. 212/2026, WA No. 216/2026, WA No. 219/2026 and the judgment dated 26/06/2026 in WA No. 225 of 2026. In the common judgment & order passed in the aforesaid Writ Appeals, the relevant paragraphs-104, 105, and 106 may be reproduced herein below:
“104.The common judgment and order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed, albeit for the reasons recorded hereinabove. Impugned Speaking Orders passed by the competitive authorities are upheld. However, for ends of justice, and taking note of the ensuing monsoon season in the state of Assam, the time limit provided by the learned single judge is extended to 45 days from today.
105.There shall be no order as to costs.
106.While parting with records, it is provided that, if any policy or scheme of rehabilitation, relocation or assistance framed by the competent government is otherwise applicable to any individual appellant, it shall be open to such persons to seek consideration thereunder, and competent authorities may examine such claims on their own merits in accordance with the governing policy and law.”
It is contended in the review petition that the learned counsel realized that a bona fide mistake has been committed by admitting that the WA No. 235 of 2026 (out of which the review petition has arisen) was covered by the said order, whereupon the writ appeal was disposed of. It is further stated that after going through the common judgment dated 25/06/2026 in WA No. 211 of 2026 along with connected cases, it was found that the case of the review petitioners is not covered by the said orders, inasmuch as those cases relate to Taungya, whereas the review petitioners do not belong to the group.
In the said circumstances, the review petition has been filed for reviewing the order passed by this Court on 08/06/2026 in WP(C) No. 1628 of 2026 and to enable the writ appellants to prosecute the appeal on merits. The learned counsel relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahil Kaushik -versus- Shelpan Lohia alias Shelpan Kaushik, being Miscellaneous Application No. 2214 of 2024 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 1713 of 2023, along with two other connected matters - in support of her contention that the party should not suffer due to a mistake of the lawyer. To reinforce that point, she also relies upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in WPC No. 1624 of 2015, Randhir Singh -versus- State of Haryana & Others.
With regard to the power of a counsel to compromise a matter on behalf of the client, the learned counsel refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamilabai Abdul Kadar -versus- Shankarlal Gulabchand & Others, reported in 1970 0 Supreme (SC) 184 / (1975) 2 SCC 609. She refers to paragraph 22, which may be reproduced herein below:
“22.While we are not prepared to consider in this case whether an Advocate or pleader is liable to legal action in case of deviance or negligence, we must uphold the actual, though implied, authority of a pleader (which is a generic expression including all legal practitioners as indicated in section 2(15), C.P.C.) to act by way of compromising a case in which he is engaged even without specific consent from his client, subject undoubtedly to two over-riding considerations : (i) He must act in good faith and for the benefit of his client ; otherwise the power fails (2) it is prudent and proper to consult his client and take his consent if there is time and opportunity. In any case, if there is any instruction to the contrary or withdrawal of authority, the implicit power to compromise in the pleader will fall to the ground. We need hardly emphasise that the bar must sternly screen to extirpate the black-sheep among them, for Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, if the profession is to command the confidence of the community and the court.”
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the prayer for review of the judgment, submits that the order was passed on the submission of the learned counsel about the case of the review petitioners as writ appellants as being covered by the common judgment dated 25/06/2026 passed in the batches of writ appeals mentioned above. It is submitted by the respondent side that the review petition is devoid of merits and ought to be dismissed.
We have perused the materials, the case laws, and given our anxious consideration to the matter. There is no doubt that a submission on those lines was made by the learned counsel that the case of the writ appellants would be covered by the directions passed in the common judgment and orders dated 25/06/2026 and 26/06/2026 passed in the batches of writ appeals. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to that aspect of the matter that the writ appeal was disposed of on the lines sought for by the learned counsel for the writ appellants.
Now, the learned counsel for the review petitioners projects a bonafide mistake in making that submission and seeking review of the order to prosecute the appeal on merits. The primary contention is that the common judgment in the aforesaid writ appeals pertains to one Taungya, whereas the case of the review petitioners does not belong to the said Taungya group.
From paragraph-63 to 67 of the common judgment in the writ appeals, the co-ordinate Division Bench referred to the Taungya system of land settlement.
In the context of land and forestry management in Assam, Taungya system is a colonial-era practice of agro-forestry where landless peasants and shifting cultivators were settled within reserve forest. Under this system, local communities were permitted to grow agricultural crops alongside forest tree seedlings planted by the government.
We have perused the grounds taken by the review petitioners in the writ appeal. There is no mention in the grounds about their case not being governed by the Taungya system. However, it is mentioned that the lands occupied by the writ appellants fall under revenue village, with clearly demarcated geographical area having independent land records, and that it is not a Panchayat village or reserve forest area. It has been stated that the allotment of land was given by the administrative authority, and some appellants had purchased their land from persons belonging to a different community who had been granted allotment by the administration and who had thereafter sold their lands to the appellants.
In the notice dated 21/02/2026 issued to the petitioner, Abu Bakkar Siddique, by the Forest Department, available in the records, it has been stated that he was found in occupation of land situated inside the notified forest area of Lutumai Reserve Forest, notified vide order dated 07/08/2025, without any valid authorization. By this notice, the said petitioner was directed to submit evidence.
From the perusal of the pleadings of the petitioners in the writ appeal, we find that they contended that the land in question falls under revenue village with fixed boundaries outside reserve forest land.
Order XLVII Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the scope of exercise of review and may be reproduced herein below:
“1.Application for review of judgment.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c)by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2)A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.
1[Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]”.
Thus, review can be exercised upon discovery of new and important matter which could not be discovered by the petitioner earlier. Secondly, it can also be exercised due to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and which is detectable without any elaborate process of reasoning or scrutiny. Thirdly, power of review in civil law can also be exercised for any other sufficient reasons.
The case of the review petitioners clearly does not fall within the first two limbs. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether they have made out a case for exercise of review power on the ground of any other sufficient reason.
It is well settled that only the principles of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to a writ proceedings. Moreover, a writ Court also exercises plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, subject of course to wise judicial discretion.
From perusal of the contentions in the writ appeal, we find that though the word "Taungya" has not been used, the contentions of the petitioners as writ appellants in the appeal are that their lands fall outside the forest area and that these lands were duly allotted by administrative authorities at the relevant time.
In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the ground of sufficient reasons can be invoked to review the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by this Court in WA No. 235/2026, and the writ appellants are allowed to pursue the writ appeal on its merits.
Accordingly, the order dated 08/06/2026 passed by us in W.A No. 235/2026 stands reviewed and the writ appeal - instead of being covered by the aforesaid series of writ appeals (WA No. 211/2026, WA No. 212/2026, WA No. 216/2026, WA No. 219/2026 and the judgment dated 26/06/2026 in WA No. 225 of 2026), may be pursued by the review petitioners/writ appellants on its own merits.
Consequently, the review petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid lines.