JUDGMENT : 

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. The intra Court appeal filed by appellants challenging judgment dated 21.02.2014, rendered in Writ Petition No. 963 of 2005 (MS), was dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 13.08.2025.

2. Appellants have sought review of the said judgment by contending that their challenge was to the determination made in para 21 and 26 of the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2014; however, in the judgment, it has come that their challenge is limited to the determination made in para 29 of the judgment.

3. In the Review Application, contentions are raised in the form of paragraphs and separate grounds of review have not been formulated. Para 3 of Review Application is extracted below:

“3. That while passing the judgment in SPA no. 62/2014 the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to mention in para no. 2 and 5 of the judgment that the Senior counsel for the appellants had stressed his arguments only on para no. 29 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Single Judge. In fact it was not so. The counsel for the appellants had drawn the attention of this Hon'ble Court that the findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge as mentioned in para no. 21 & 26 were not in accordance with law, while findings mentioned in para no. 29 were in favour of the appellants. Therefore there was no question to challenge the findings of para no. 29 of the judgment. Even from bare perusal of para no. 3 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench it is clearly reflected that the Senior counsel for the appellants had submitted that in view of the provisions contained in section 6-A of G.E.T.A Act not only the "ceiling area" has to be determined as per the provisions of UP Imposition Ceiling on Land holdings Act 1960 but the procedure as prescribed in the "Ceiling Act" and the rules framed thereunder has to be followed for determination, demarcation of ceiling area, separation of "surplus area" and taking of possession over "surplus area" etc. Thus it is crystal clear that the appellants had challenged the findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge as mentioned in para no. 21 & 26 of the judgment.”

4. Learned State Counsel takes strong exception to the ground on which review is sought and he submits that all the contentions raised by the review applicants were considered and discussed in the judgment and the review application is ill advised. He further submits that appellants want to reargue the matter on merits, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction.

5. Learned State Counsel refers to the grounds in the Memo of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, for submitting that none of the grounds supports the contention now raised by review applicants. He contends that appellants have taken a somersault for rehearing of the appeal on merits; therefore, review application is liable to be rejected as there is no error apparent which may warrant invocation of review power.

6. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel further submits that even if the contention raised by review applicants is taken on its face value, then also it does not have any bearing on the merits of the case as learned Single Judge, in the judgment under appeal, had indicated reasons in para 21 and 26 of the judgment, while conclusion was recorded in para 29.

7. For ready reference, para 21, 26 and 29 of the judgment, rendered by learned Single Judge, challenged in intra Court appeal, are extracted below:

“21. So far as the calculation of the ceiling area is concerned, the provisions of the 1960 Act (Ceiling Act) would apply, but the proceeding has to be initiated under the UP Act No. 1 of 1959, as revalidated by the UP Act No. 28 of 1970. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Advocates in this regard is misconceived. So far as the statement made by the learned Advocate General before the Allahabad High Court is concerned, that cannot be said to be having a binding effect. If a statement is made against the provisions of law, that cannot be said to be having a binding effect as it