Shailendra Singh and 5 Others v. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya and 6 Others

Court No. - 7 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 17 of 2024 Applicant :- Shailendra Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard.

¶2Present review application under Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred by the petitioner in relation to final judgment and order dated

06.02.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 22945 of 2020 (Shailendra Singh and Others Versus Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya).

¶3The grounds for seeking review of judgment and order dated

06.02.2024 taken in the present application, are extracted hereinunder:- "A. Because, the petitioner filed the restoration Tahsildar, application Akabarpur before District Ambedakar Nagar in the under section 201 L.R. Act in Village Adampur Tindoli, Pargana-Akabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, Distt-Ambedakar Nagar against the order dated 27.01.2014 Passed by the Tahsildar, Akabarpur District Ambedakar Nagar. B. BECAUSE, the Tahsildar Sadar District - Ayodhya passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 in Case No 696/1999-2000, Smt. Rumali Devi V/s Mu. Rajdei in under section 34 LR Act In Village Adampur Tindoli, Pargana-Akabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, Distt-Ambedakar Nagar on the ground that same has been passed in arbitrary and illegal manner against the provision of law. C. BECAUSE, the petitioners filed the Revision No 00250/2019, Shailendra Singh & Others V/s Surendra Bhadur Singh & Others before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya. D. BECAUSE, the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 in Revision No. 00250/2019, Shailendra Singh & Others V/s Surendra Bhadur Singh & Others on the ground that same has been passed in arbitrary and illegal manner against the provision of law. E. BECAUSE, the land in dispute is in possession of petitioner till today and crops of the petitioner are standing on the land in dispute and continue cultivating on the said land, the petitioners have not dispossessed from the land up till now, same is in possession of the petitioners. F. BECAUSE, the opposite party no. 1 is passed the order dated: 08.11.2019 and 31.01.2019, which is purely illegal, perverse, and unjust and against the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. G. BECAUSE, the opposite parties are not acting fairly in accordance with law and action of the opposite parties are unjust, improper and unconstitutional and bad in the eyes of law. H. BECAUSE, the opposite party no. 1 Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 which is purely illegal, perverse, and unjust and against the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. I. BECAUSE, the act of opposite party is also illegal and also against the rules and regulation of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and also against the provisions of article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. J. BECAUSE, the order dated 09.01.1958 was not available to the petitioner till the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024. K. BECAUSE, the act of the opposite parties is totally illegal, and against the principles of natural justice That the act of the opposite parties is totally illegal, and against the principles of natural justice."

¶4After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported in

(2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.25,.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:—

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

¶5In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.

¶6Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, observed as under:-

¶9In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of 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……… A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace."

¶10It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶11In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very pivotal observations:— "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

it is not

permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

¶12Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

¶13Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.

¶14In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), this Court reiterated the law and held that:— "15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions."

¶15It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

¶16The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

¶7In the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius)."

¶8Upon due consideration of the grounds as also the law related to review petition, according to which the review is by no means an appeal in disguise and the scope of review is limited as also the reasons indicated in the impugned order which are basically based upon the orders passed by Consolidation Authorities and the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.168 (Consolidation) 1985 vide order dated 21.01.2014 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 09.05.2014, this Court finds no force in the present review petition. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.02.2024 Jyoti/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench