HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI AND

HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Review Application No. MCC/15625 of 2025

In

Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014

Km. Meenakshi Agarwal and others --Appellants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates:-

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Shaify, Advocate for review

applicants.

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand --------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

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, challen