Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, CJ., ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Brij Kumar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 39872 of 2018
Decided On : 04-10-2023
Review Application - Land Possession Dispute - Section 10(6) of the Act - Section 10(5) of the Act - Section 114 of the CPC - Order XLVII of the CPC
Fact of the Case:
The Moradabad Development Authority filed a review petition seeking to challenge a judgment and order that quashed an earlier order and directed the respondents to expunge the name of the respondent-State from the revenue records and restore the petitioner's ownership of the land. The Authority argued that the possession had been taken before the Repeal Act and thus the benefit of the Repeal act could not be given to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court discussed the relevant provisions of law governing review jurisdiction, emphasizing the grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment. It highlighted the requirement for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The court also emphasized that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, would result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness.
Issues: The core issue was whether the court erred in law in recording a finding that possession memo dated 13.11.1992 is merely a paper possession and is not actual possession, and whether the court erred in law in misconstruing and misinterpreting the report of the District Judge, Moradabad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment, emphasizing the requirement for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the limited scope of review jurisdiction. It also highlighted that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, would result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the review application, stating that it lacked merit.
JUDGMENT :
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 9 of 2020:
The Review Application is reported beyond time by 60 days. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent does not oppose the Delay Condonation Application. Consequently, the delay is condoned. The Review Application shall be treated to have been filed within the period of limitation.
Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No. 10 of 2020:
1. The present review petition has been filed by the Moradabad Development Authority, respondent No. 4 in the writ petition seeking the review of the judgment and order dated 11.06.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 39872 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 6.8.2018 was quashed and at the same time, a direction was issued to the respondents to expunge the name of the respondent-State from the revenue records and to restore that of the petitioner who was stated to be the owner of the land in question.
2. Learned counsel for the Development Authority submitted that there is error apparent on the face of the record in as much as the Court erred in law to resort to Section 10(6) of the Act to prove possession though it is not the case of forceful possession since the possession had already been taken on 13.11.1992. It has been further contended that notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 24.08.1992 which was duly served on the tenure holder and the writ petitioner raised no objection to the said notice under Section 10(5) of the Act and on 13.11.1992 peaceful possession of the land was delivered to the State Government and hence, the possession been taken much before the Repeal Act and thus benefit of the Repeal act could not be given to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the District Judge, Moradabad in his report had stated that the land in question is a vacant land and there is no crops standing over it and the vacant land be construed as vacant land as per the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, however, this Court erred in law in misconstruing and misinterpreting the same and as such, the judgment and order is liable to be reviewed.
3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The core argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that this court erred in law in recording a finding that possession memo dated 13.11.1992 is merely a paper possession and is not actual possession which finding, is against the law propounded by the Apex court in the case of Banda Development Authority vs. Motilal Agarwal, (2011) 5 SCC 394 and this court also did not take into consideration the law propounded by the Apex court in the case of State of Assam vs. Bhasker Jyoti Sharma, (2015) 5 SCC 321, in which it has been held that non challenge to the notice under section 10 (5) of the Act by the owner of the land for a long time acquire legitimacy to the possession taken by the State Government by sheer lapse of time.
5. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned Counsel it would be trite to discuss the relevant provisions of law that govern review jurisdiction.
6. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:
(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code.
(c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”
7. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words:
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved:
(a) by a decree or order
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing the requirement for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the court's ina....
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
Point of law: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeki....
Review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-argument or appeal; it is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or addressing new evidence that was not available at the time of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
