The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review application should only be allowed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and not based on new evidence or errors that require re-assessment of the evidence.

( 1 ) INSTANT appeal has been preferred against 19. 1. 2005 passed by Shri S. K. S Yadav, Addl. District Judge in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2002 Varanasi Vikas Pradhikan and Ors. v. Mohan Lal and Ors. whereby the review application was allowed and judgment and decree dated 31. 5. 2001 passed by his predecessor in Civil Appeal No. 209 of 1985 Mohan Lal v. Varanasi Vikas pradhikaran was set aside and consequently Civil Suit No. 176 of 1978 Mohan Lal v. Varanasi vikas Pradhikaran was dismissed.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the Appellants assisted by Sri R. K. Tiwari, Shri ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record.

( 3 ) IT will be significant to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal Mohan Lal appellant died and Smt. Sursati Devi wife of Mohan Lal, his sons and daughters have been substituted as appellants.

( 4 ) THE fact of the case as revealed from the records is that Mohan Lal filed Civil Suit No. 176 of 1978 Mohan Lal v. Varanasi Vikas Pradhikaran which was finally decided by the IXth Munsif varanasi and the suit was dismissed on 8. 7. 1985. The allegations of Mohan Lal was that he is in possession of plot No. 77/6 area ? Acres in Village Lallapura Pargana Dehat Amanat District varanasi. Earlier Manmohan Das and Jai Kishan Das sons of Kesav Das were its tenure holder and its Khewat and Khata No. was 22 in 1960. Both these persons who were Zamindars obtained rs. 4 from the plaintiff and permitted to raise house on Plot No. 77/6 and gave possession to mohan Lal. Since then Mohan Lal remained in possession over the land. He could not raise construction on it but he constructed a Gumti of Tea. On the nearby plot Varanasi Vikas pradhikaran constructed house under Shastri Nagar Housing Planning on 3. 63 Acres land. Since his land is just near to the land of Varanasi Vikas Pradhikaran the value of the plot No. 77/6 was increased and many persons tried to take possession of this land. Total area of Plot No. 77 mohalla Lallapura Varanasi was 4. 16 Acres out of which Sastri Nagar Houses were constructed on 3. 63 Acres but no construction was made on plot No. 77/6 nor it was acquired by Varanasi vikas Pradhikaran. Road was constructed on nearly plot No. 76 and not on plot No. 77. On 15. 3. 78 some employees of Varanasi Vikas Pradhikaran wanted to take forcible possession of the land with the help of the police and thereafter the suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction to take possession of the land.

( 5 ) VARANASI Vikas Pradhikaran contested the suit and filed written statement that area of plot No. 77 was 4. 10 Acres and the whole land was acquired for construction of Shastri Nagar Housing planning. The land was acquired from the year 1962 to 1968. Part of the land was used for road and on rest portion of the plot No. 77 houses were constructed under Shastri Nagar Planning and the plaintiff had no right to remain in possession. After appreciating the evidence the learned munsif dismissed the suit and held that land was acquired by Varanasi Vikas Pradhikaran which is in possession of the land since 1962. The area of plot No. 77 is 4. 10 Acres, no plot number was marked on it. Neither the plaintiff is the owner nor is in possession of it.

( 6 ) AFTER the suit was dismissed on 8. 7. 1985 by the leaned IXth Munsif Varanasi Civil appeal No. 209 of 1985 Mohan Lal v. Varanasi Vikas Pradhikaran was preferred. After the discussion of the evidence Shri Ghanshyam Pandey the then 4th Addl. District Judge Varanasi allowed the appeal on 31. 5. 2001 and held that there was Bata number of plot No. 77. The land in dispute was plot no. 77/6. Earlier it was in the possession of Zamindars Manmohan Das and Jai Kishan Das from whom after giving Nazrana the land was taken by Mohan Lal and since then he is in possession and raised Gumti Stall and shop of Tea. There are papers in support of his contention and after detailed discussions the appeal was allowed,