"Review Is Not An Appeal": MP High Court Refuses To Revisit Order Upholding Enhanced Land Compensation

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has dismissed a review petition filed by the State government, holding that the plea was "misconceived and meritless" and that no valid ground existed to reopen an earlier order which had refused to disturb enhanced compensation in a land dispute.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, in an order passed on September 29, 2026, was hearing the State's plea seeking review of the court's February 18, 2025 decision, which had dismissed a first appeal filed by the State against Kalabai (since deceased), now represented through legal representatives, and others.

The court first condoned the delay in filing the review petition, noting that it arose from "administrative process." It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, which favours a liberal approach to condonation.

On merits, Government Advocate Kushagra Singh, appearing for the State, argued that the diversion of the land had been cancelled by the competent authority, a fact that "goes to the root of the matter" and directly affects the valuation of compensation. That cancellation, the State said, was never considered when the earlier order was passed. It added that the earlier decisions relied upon, First Appeal Nos. 705/2020 and 230/2025, did not involve a cancelled diversion, and alleged that the respondents gained enhanced compensation by projecting the land as diverted, amounting to suppression of material facts.

Opposing the plea, Advocate Surbhi Bahal, appearing for the respondent, submitted that no ground under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made out. She pointed out that the cancellation of diversion had itself been challenged in a writ petition decided on October 31, 2025, where the order was quashed with the consent of the State's counsel. She added that, as the appellant, the State was duty-bound to bring such facts to the court's notice and could not now "canvass the case" on the plea of suppression.

Justice Bhatt held that even assuming the State's counsel had failed to discharge his duty, that ground was "not sufficient to entertain the review petition," particularly without any material showing that the lapse was deliberate.

The court then turned to the October 31, 2025 writ order and reproduced its relevant portions. That order had quashed a notice dated September 18, 2020, along with all consequent proceedings, after finding that the authorities were required to issue notice to the affected party before seeking or granting sanction for review under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Drawing from this, the court observed that the order on which the State relied had already been quashed.

The bench also revisited the settled law on review. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in S. Tirupathi Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah, it recalled that review proceedings "are not by way of an appeal" and must remain strictly within Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. That provision permits review on three grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge; a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason analogous to these two.

Applying these principles, the court observed that there was "no quarrel about the fact that document was not produced on record." However, it stressed that the applicant seeking review "has to show that there is due diligence." Since the diversion-related proceedings had been quashed in the subsequent writ order, the court held that "no valid ground is existing for consideration of review."

Concluding that the petition was "misconceived and meritless," Justice Bhatt dismissed it.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Kalabai (since deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others

Date of Order: September 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt