A review petition is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record; factual disputes regarding the mode of Patta issuance not supported by evidence do not constitute such an error.

Judgment / Order

This review petition, which is reported to be time barred by 183 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay.

For the reasons stated in the application (1022/2025), the same is allowed. Delay in preferring the review petition is condoned.

This petition is filed seeking review and recalling of the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11736/2010 whereby, the writ petition filed by the review-petitioner was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the review-petitioner submits that the order dated 24.02.2025 suffers from an error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as it was wrongly canvassed on his behalf by his learned counsel that the subject Patta was issued to him in an auction rather, as a matter of fact, it was issued under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for brevity "the Rules of 1996"). He further contends that since, his old house existed on the subject land, the Gram Panchayat has rightly issued Patta of the subject land under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996. He, therefore, prayed that the review petition be allowed, the order dated 24.02.2025 be recalled and the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11736/2010 be restored to its original number.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the order under review dated 24.02.2025 reflects that it was categorically contended on behalf of the review-petitioner that the subject Patta was issued to him in an auction. However, be as it may, this Court has considered that the Patta was issued to the review-petitioner pursuant to resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Ratlai dated 05.07.2004 on the premise that to augment income of the Gram Panchayat, a decision was taken to allot the Patta of the old buildings/houses. The revisional authority has, vide its order dated 16.06.2010-the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, categorically held that from the record, it was not reflected that the petitioner had any old house on the subject land. It was also held by this Court while dismissing the writ petition that Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 which provides for regularization of old buildings/houses at the rate and the manner prescribed therein, was not followed before issuance of the subject Patta.

In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is not satisfied that the order dated 24.02.2025 suffers from any error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant its review/recall.

On that premise, the review petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.