Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII of CPC is limited to clear errors or newly discovered evidence; rearguing previous decisions is not permissible.

ORDER :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14525 of 2023 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by this Court in that writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents, who are in possession of Annexure A document now produced by the petitioner along with this review petition, purposefully did not produce the same in the writ petition. If Annexure A document was before this Court at the time of passing the judgment in the writ petition, the result would have been different. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that as per Section 6 (1) of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (‘the KDH Act’, in short) the Collector shall cause the boundaries of each parcel of land, the possession of which has vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3 , to be demarcated. As per Section 6 (2) of the KDH Act, as soon as the completion of the demarcation as stipulated in Section 6 (1), the Collector shall publish a notification prescribing the extent, boundaries and other particulars as may be prescribed of such land. By relying on Annexure A, the relevant extract of Kerala Gazette No.7 dated 15.02.1977 Part III, the learned counsel pointed out that neither survey No.843A nor 912 is included in the said notification published under Section 6 (2) of the KDH Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the land in dispute in this case is not vested in the Government under Section 3 (1) of the KDH Act. In such circumstances, the District Collector is not the authority to issue assignment orders in respect of the property in question, on the strength of Section 9 of the KDH Act. Since Annexure A document was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the present review petition squarely falls under the grounds of review provided under Order XLVII Rule 1, read with Section 114 of the CPC. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [ (2013) 8 SCC 320 ] to contend that the present review petition is maintainable in view of the discovery of a new and important matter of evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that as per Section 3 (2)(d) of the KDH Act, lands in possession of Central Government or in State Government or in Kerala State Electricity Board are excluded from the purview of Section 3 (1) of the said Act and therefore the respondents cannot contend that the entire land situated within Kannan Devan Hills village are vested in the Government on coming into force of KDH Act and falls within the purview of the lands mentioned in Section 3 (1) of the KDH Act. By relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 06.01.2021 in W.P.(C)No.5728 of 2009, the learned counsel argued that even the land involved in that case was admitted by the Government as not falling under the category of lands mentioned in Section 3 (1) of the KDH Act, though situated in Kan