Review applications are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot serve as an appeal, especially when prior decisions were based on clear statutory provisions.

ORDER :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shirish Sanjanwala assisted by Mr. Dilip Kanojiya, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondent authority.

2. By this application, the original petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 10076 of 2011 is seeking review of the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by this Court, whereby, Special Civil Application No. 10076 of 2011 with Civil Application (for direction) No. 1 of 2018 was dismissed on merits. While dismissing the Special Civil Application, we have also disposed of Civil Application (for direction) No. 1 of 2018, as not survived and same came to be disposed of with the main matter. In Civil Application No. 1 of 2018, direction was sought to hand over documents so that petitioner could challenge the order of detention, allegedly passed against one Jaku Kara under the provisions of COFEPOSA. While admitting the said Civil Application at relevant time, order was passed to the effect that, “let it be heard along with the main matter.” It is in this background facts, being aggrieved with the disposal of the Civil Application, the original petitioners have preferred this Review Application.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file this Review Application are as under:

(1) The applicants by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the order dated 13.09.1977 and 20.09.1977 passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of SAFEMA (Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The authority had passed the order of forfeiture with respect to agricultural land being survey No. 26, admeasuring 18 acres at Village : Sodsala, Jamkhambhalia, State of Gujarat, against one Sale Mohd. Kara, as the said property acquired from the proceeds of smuggling activities of one Jaku Kara, who happened to be the brother of Sale Mohd. In the proceedings, Sale Mohd. took a stand that, the property was purchased in the year 1971 by him from his own source of income. The respondent authority did not consider the stand of Sale Mohd., and by reasoned order dated 13.09.1977, forfeited to the Central Government the said agricultural land and wrote a letter to the concerned Collector directing him to take possession. The said order carried by Sale Mohd. to the appellate Tribunal and tribunal after hearing the parties, confirmed the order of forfeiture and dismissed the appeal. Despite of order of forfeiture, Sale Mohd. by registered sale deed dated 01.04.1998, sold the agricultural land to the petitioners i.e. Mer Nagabhai Odedara and Mer Lilabhai Odedara. The purchasers i.e. petitioners by filing writ petition (Special Civil Application No. 10076 of 2011), had challenged the legality of the forfeiture order dated 13.09.1977.

(2) After hearing the parties, this Court though it fit to dismiss the Special Civil Application and accordingly, it has been dismissed on 30.08.2024, by reasoned order. While dismissing the Special Civil Application, we have observed that, “the petitioners have purchased the property after notice of forfeiture and therefore, no protection is available to them to prove that they are transferee in good faith for adequate consideration and in view of Section 11 of the SAFEMA, no title came to be vested in the purchasers by virtue of sale deeds, as the vendors could not have transferred the property after the service of notice under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA and thus, the petitioners cannot get the benefit of Section 2 (2)(e) of the SAFEMA and when they are not entitled to get the benefits of protection, the plea with regar