JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri PD Nair, learned counsel for the review applicants. Also heard Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department wheras Shri J. Handique, learned counsel has appeared for the State respondents.

2. By this application, a review has been sought for in respect of an order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in WP(C)/3518/2017. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition was dismissed holding the same to be without any merits.

3. Before going to the facts or the grounds of review, this Court is reminded of the limited role of a Review Court.

4. By taking the spirit of the Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the grounds of review is limited to the following:

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.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has laid down that a Review Court is not a Court of Appeal where any error can be corrected. It is only those errors which are palpable and apparent on the face of the records that a Review Court can entertain.

6. In the case of Shivdev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that there is no restriction in Article 226 of the Constitution of India for exercising the power of review as, it is a Court of plenary jurisdiction. However, it has been held that there are definitive limitations and are not to be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, as the same could be a matter within the domain of an Appellate Court. It has further been clarified that a review power should not be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all matters of error committed by a subordinate court.

7. The aforesaid view has been uniformly followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in the landmark case of Aribam Tuleswar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, a case which had gone from this High Court.

8. In the case of (2013) 8 SCC 320, Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., the following have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

“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” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 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.

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 reheard 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 permi