The review process is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record and does not entail a re-hearing of merits, reaffirming jurisdictional authority in land classification cases.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application

1. Heard Sri H.N.Singh, learner senior counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Srivastava along with Sri Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party respondent Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Stamp reporter has reported laches of 222 days in filing the instant review application which has been properly explained in the application as well as affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants.

3. The explanation given for delay of 222 days in filing the review application is satisfactory.

4. The delay in filing the review application is condoned.

Order on Review Application

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Srivastava along with Sri Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants in Review Application No. 536 of 2022, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondent nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant review application has been filed against judgement and order dated 18.03.2024 passed by this Court on merit after hearing the learned counsel for the parties taking following grounds in the memo of review application:-

Grounds

1. Because the Hon'ble Court in spite of the instructions in pursuance of the order dated 08.11.2023 by the Counsel for Nagar Nigam, Meerut that the Khasra No.59 area 0.3430 hectare is not in Nagar Nigam and contrary instructions for standing counsel that the same is under Nagar Nigam and residential houses/boundary wall are situated in Plot No.59 omitted to decide where the plot in question, particularly, Village Noor Nagar is still continuing as village or it has merged in Nagar Nigam,Meerut, hence a mistake apparent face of record occurred.

2. Because once the Plot No.59 old Plot No.38/1 Noor Nagar is within the area of Nagar Nigam the provision of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will not be applicable and the land in question is not a land within the definition of Section 4 (14) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the suit for eviction under Section 134 of the Code will not be maintainable and this issue has not been decided and mistake has occurred.

3. Because once the area is within the Nagar Nigam, provision of the Uttar Pradesh MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1959") will be applicable and in view of Article 243 (q) read with Section 3 of the Act, 1959 the same will be larger urban area and shall be known as city and in view of sub-Section (2) Section 3 area shall thereby, become subject to all notifications, rules, regulations, bye-laws, orders and directions issued under the Act or any other enactment and enforce in city and as such, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or Revenue Code will not be applicable in Municipal Corporation area.

4. Because the whole dispute and consequential suit and eviction is based on order of mutation dated 09.10.1967 passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of Diwan Singh and the same was recalled by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 11.04.2011 and was ultimately affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court by judgment and order dated 02.12.2016 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing the Special Appeal by order dated 17.02.2017 and the said mutation does not decide the title and it is for physical purpose, meaning thereby, for collecting land reven