Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to correcting manifest errors or considering newly discovered evidence. It cannot function as an appeal to re-examine the entire merits of a case or correct decisions deemed 'erroneous' by the reviewing authority.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1) By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have prayed for following reliefs:

‘’(A) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned orders .

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the impugned orders and be further pleased to stay further proceedings, if any, initiated by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. (Ceiling), Olpad pursuant to the impugned order ;

(C) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and expedient in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.

(D) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded to the present petitioners.’’

2) The case of the petitioners can be conceptualised in a nutshell as under:

2.1) One Kuberbhai Lallubhai was the common ancestor of all the petitioners. After his sad demise, his widow Kashiben and his two sons jointly inherited the lands held by the deceased Kuberbhai. The lands were measured when the entry was mutated in their favour on 01.04.1966. As per the statutory provisions of law, namely the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, (herein referred to as “The Act”) Kashiben was entitled to hold three units out of the total holding of the deceased Kuberbhai. The family of Kashiben consisted of more than five members on the date when the Ceiling Act came into force. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 6(3B) of the Act, the family was entitled to an additional 2/5th unit. The Deputy Collector dismissed the applications preferred by the deceased Thakorbhai Kuberbhai Patel.

2.2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, a Revision Application was preferred before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the revision application by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and held that Shri Thakorbhai Kuberbhai Patel would be entitled to hold three units as on 01.04.1976. However, such holding was made subject to the provisions of Sections 9 and 9A of the Act, and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Oplad. The said order was challenged by filing a petition before this Court. However, the proceedings were withdrawn with liberty to file afresh applications before the concerned authority, limited to filing review applications with respect to the additional claim of 2/5th unit under Section 6(3B) of the Act. The said review application came to be dismissed. The petitioners had restricted their claim only to the extent of an additional 2/5th unit under Section 6(3B) of the Act, and the State had neither filed any review application nor challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal before any Court. Despite the above, while considering the review on merits, the Revenue Tribunal dismissed the review applications and also held that the petitioners were not entitled even to the holding of three units. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3) Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Asim Pandya, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Y.H. Motiramani for the respondents and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for Respondent – State.

4) Learned senior counsel Mr. Asim Pandya, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt for the petitioners, submits that the issue involved in the present matter lies in a narrow