IMPORTANT POINT
Review Jurisdiction – An error apparent on face of record is a ground for invoking review jurisdiction – An error apparent on face of record is one when in comprehending such error, elaborate reasoning is not required.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Out of the four present Appeals, those three preferred by the private Appellants are the Appeals directed against judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 in Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2014, and against orders dated 15.05.2015 in Review Petition Nos. 123 of 2015 and 125 of 2015, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The fourth Appeal is filed by Nagar Palika, Khachrod¹[Hereinafter, ‘Municipal Council’.], in which the Nagar Palika-original respondent No. 6 in the petition has challenged the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.04.2015.

2.1 Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2014, which was filed by respondent No.1 herein, styling it as a Public Interest Litigation²[Hereinafter, “PIL”.], came to be allowed by the High Court directing the authorities concerned to remove all the shops constructed by the Municipal Council, which shops were allotted to the private Appellants herein, accepting the case that the said constructed shops were erected on the land known as ‘Dussehra Maidan’ reserved for Dussehra festival and related cultural events.

2.2 The private appellants herein who are the allottees of the shops in question and in occupation and possession thereof, were not arraigned as parties in the public interest petition. In view that the direction was issued to remove their shops in their absence, they in two batches of 12 and 14 in numbers respectively, filed two review petitions, which came to be dismissed by the High Court.

3. The public interest petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein, projecting himself to be a social worker and an agriculturist, contended inter alia that the land comprised in Survey Nos. 4228/1, 4228/2 and 4229/1 admeasuring total 3.260 Hectares at Khachrod, District Ujjain, was a government land known as ‘Dussehra Maidan’ and that the same was reserved to be utilised only for the purpose of holding cultural events on Dussehra to celebrate the Festival. A case was put forward that the Municipal Council had unauthorisedly constructed the shops because of which the area of the ‘Dussehra Maidan’ was eaten up and that it would hamper the cultural activities.

3.1. It appears that the public interest petitioner lodged a complaint before the Tehsildar, Khachrod, Ujjain³[Hereinafter, “Tehsildar”.], who forwarded the same to the Revenue Inspector and a report of inspection was prepared stating inter alia that 54 shops were built by the Municipal Council. The Inquiry Report further mentioned that in addition to the shops, also stood a school building and a hostel at the place. In the report, it was observed that it was not possible to ascertain as to whether the possession was legal or illegal.

3.1.1. In the prayers advanced in the said public interest petition, a direction was asked for against the respondent authorities to demolish the construction on the said land, to initiate administrative enquiry against erring officers and to take out criminal proceedings against the persons responsible. The public interest petitioner further prayed to restore the land as ‘Dussehra Maidan’ asserting the use claimed to have been earmarked for the said land.

3.2. The facts in the background were that an advertisement dated 04.03.2005 was issued by the Municipal Board, Khachrod for auctioning seven newly constructed shops at the place in question and a document of ‘Conditions of Auction' came to be issued on 16.03.2005. An Allotment Letter dated 21.03.2005 was issued to one of the appellants and a Rent Agreement dated 19.05.2005 in respect of a newly built shop was executed. The allottee-appellant deposited Rs. 1,07,000/- towards the premium amount. It is stated that between the years 2005 and 2014, several rent agreements in respect of the shops which came to be constructed from time to time, were executed. The allottees-appellants remained in continuous possession of their shops.

3.2.1. It further appears that the project of construction of shops at the place was under contemplation of the Municipal Cou