STATE OF GUJARAT v. SANKALCHAND P. VACHHETA — 1999 DIGILAW 501 (GUJ)

K. R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS Court on the repeal of Urban Land ( Ceiling and Regulations ) Act, 1976 disposed of many matters by passing the following order:"the petitioner in this petition has challenged the order passed by the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The authorities have not taken the possession of the land in question from the petitioner, which is not in dispute. IN view of the fact that the dispute involved in this petition is directly covered under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 ( Act No. 15 of 1999 ) repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 which is also adopted by the State Government by passing a resolution dated 30. 3. 1999, this petition has abated and consequently the impugned order passed against the petitioner also stands abated. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. " ( 2 ) THE State Government has filed the present application for review of the above order by alleging that the possession of the excess vacant land was taken over by the State before notice in the main special civil application was issued. It is therefore, the State wants this Court to delete this part of the order "the authorities have not taken possession of the land in question from the petitioner, which is not in dispute. " It is the contention of the State that the factual proposition to the effect that the possession of the excess vacant land was taken by the Government was not brought to the notice of the Court through inadvertence and mistake. Neither the officers of the concerned department were called nor the original record was perused. That the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the possession was taken over by the Government before the petitioner filed the petition in this Court. In support of the say, a copy of the panchanama taking possession of the excess vacant land is filed. Since the averments made in this application are common in all the matters, all these matters are heard togather and are disposed of by this common order. In support of the say, a copy of the panchanama taking possession of the excess vacant land is filed. Since the averments made in this application are common in all the matters, all these matters are heard togather and are disposed of by this common order. ( 3 ) MR DN Patel learned AGP appearing for the applicant submitted that in these group of matters, the State Government has in fact, taken possession of the excess vacant land and this fact was within the knoweledge of the petitioners and the same was suppressed by the petitioners, and therefore, the case requires review of the order by deleting the observations that "the authorities have not taken the possession of the land in question from the petitioner which is not in dispute. " In the submission of Mr. Patel, this is a clear case of mistake or the error apparent on the face of the record which clearly attract the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the opponents intheir respective applications, while disputing the fact that the authorities have taken over the possession of the land inquestion from the petitioners submitted that none of the ingredients of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is satisfied and, therefore, the application itself is misconceived. Learned counsels appearing for the opponents also raised a contention regarding the limitation by submitting that the application for review being time barred and in absence of the prayer of condonation of delay, the same is also required to be rejected on that ground. ( 4 ) IN view of the submissions advanced before me, the important question is required to be decided is about the maintainability of the review application. This court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is having inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But as held by the Supreme Court in the case of A. T. Sharma vs. A. P. Sharma, AIR, 1979, p. 1047, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. But as held by the Supreme Court in the case of A. T. Sharma vs. A. P. Sharma, AIR, 1979, p. 1047, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analoguous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. It is not in dispute that in the main petition even though it is averred by the concerned petitioner that he is in possession of the land in question has not been refutted with filing of affidavit. This Court, on the basis of the avermented have protected the petitioner by passing interim orders, which continued for many years. No attempts were made to vacate the said order. Thus, the fact that the petitioner was in possession or not of the land in question was within the knowledge of the State Government. It is to be noted that the authorities were having not only the sufficient time, but were also having the entire record. It is not the case of the authority that they were prevented from producing the documents to controvert the averements made in the petition. It is not pleaded by the petitioner that the Court has committed mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, order requires review. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of AT Sharma (supra) the power of review can be exercised where there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any analoguous ground. Having gone through the averments made in this application carefully, I am of the opinion that the averments are too general and vague in nature. Having gone through the averments made in this application carefully, I am of the opinion that the averments are too general and vague in nature. Nothing is mentioned as to who committed mistake of making a statement in the court regarding the question of possession of the land in question. As stated above, this is a clear case stained with negligence on the part of the authority by not filing proper reply in the main petition dealing with the averments and more particularly on the question of posession of the land raised in the petition. The panchanama which is produced for the first time in the present application was very much there with the authority and they could have filed the panchnama alongwith the affidavit and disputed the question of possession. Having not done so, the dispute regarding possession having been taken for the first time cannot be agitated in the review application. In any case, the question of possession being highly disputed question of fact cannot be allowed to be raised in review application. ( 5 ) THIS Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. vs. Dr. B. J. Bhatt, reported in 18 GLR p. 173, has clearly rulled that it is not open to a person who applies for review to say that merely because he has found some additional evidence to support the case which he earlier pleaded, the judgment or order against which he complained should be reviewed. It appears that this is not only a case of no diligence having been exercised, much less due diligence, but this is a case of complete negligence and indifference," this Court, therefore, has held that the petition is not maintainable under Rule 1 Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present case being more or less same, in my view, the ratio laid down would clearly apply to the present case, also. In view of this, I hold that none of the application is maintainable. ( 6 ) BEFORE Parting, I may observe that in the application certain irresponsible and baseless averments are made, without verifying true facts. Since it concerns institute, I think it is hightime that Court must observe something with a view to prevent publicity of distorted version. In view of this, I hold that none of the application is maintainable. ( 6 ) BEFORE Parting, I may observe that in the application certain irresponsible and baseless averments are made, without verifying true facts. Since it concerns institute, I think it is hightime that Court must observe something with a view to prevent publicity of distorted version. It is averred in para-5b of the application that the "possession of the excess vacant land was taken by the Government on 27. 7. 1980 was not brought to the notice of this Court through inadvertance and mistake. Neither the officer of the concerned department was called nor the original record was perused. " By making this averments, the deponent wants to convey that eveybody may be advocate, may be court without paying attention to the question of possession, disposed off the matter. Originally, it appears the petition was to be affirmed by one Mr. Hamendra J. Shah, Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, as his name is mentioned at the end of the petition below the word affidavit, however, instead of the said Gentleman, one Mr M. D. Raval, Deputy Secretary of the same department ultimately swered the affidavit, wherein he has stated that what is stated in para 1 to 4 is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, belief and informations, derived from the official records and he believed to be true and correct. Admittedly, the aforesaid averments made in para-5 (B) is not part of his affidavit. In other words, the said Gentleman is not aware about the proceedings conducted in this Court when the main petition alongwith other petitions were heard on the day in question. It is not his say that he is the officer who remained present and witnessed the proceedings. Thus, irresponsible averments are made by the said Gentleman. When he states that neither officer of the concerned department was called nor the original record was perused, the same being not only vague and general in nature, but factually also not correct. All the petitions were heard and disposed off in 6 to 7 days. Seperate board was prepared well in advance with a view to see that boththe side advocates get proper instructions. No matter where the question of possession was in dispute was heard and was adjourned. The concerned Ld. All the petitions were heard and disposed off in 6 to 7 days. Seperate board was prepared well in advance with a view to see that boththe side advocates get proper instructions. No matter where the question of possession was in dispute was heard and was adjourned. The concerned Ld. AGP, who were assisted by their own staff as well as the concerned Government Officers, who were specially called were only required to see the factual aspect regarding possession of the land from the records. After verifying the records, necessary instructions were in fact, passed on to the concerned AGP. The Ld. AGP in fact, perused the record in presence of the court and ultimately made a statement. Thus, solely relying on the statements, this Court specifically mentioned in the order that the question of possession is not in dispute. The depondent Mr Raval could have verified the correctness of the statement made in para 5 (B) of the application before approaching the Press. With a hope that in future either Mr Raval or any other officer shall act delightly and shall take utmost care and caution before making any statement in the Court, instead oftaking any action for making incorrect statement, while depricating such part, I close the chapter. ( 7 ) IN the result, all these Review Applications fail and are rejected. Rule discharged in all the aplications with costs. Order of status quo stands vacated. .