Judgment 1. The present review application has been filed to review the order of this court dated 31.3.1998 passed in L.P.A. No. 433 of 1996 by which in view of the provisions of section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the L.P.A. court came to the conclusion that the writ court had rightly reached the conclusion that the land acquisition proceeding by virtue of section 11A of the Act had lapsed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order had been passed, as certain facts could not be brought to the knowledge of the court, as such, some new contentions have been raised. 3. The moot question, which requires to be decided is as to whether in a Civil Review application the matter is to be examined afresh or only error apparent is to be seen on the record? 4. The Supreme Court while considering the aforesaid matter in the case of Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and ors., reported in (2000) 7 S.C.C. 296 had come to the conclusion that review was not an appeal in disguise. There was a distinction between "erroneous decision" and "error apparent". Admittedly in the present case, no error apparent could be pointed out. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under the present application for review. 5. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.H. Prabhakaran and others vs. M.D. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. (2000) 9 S. C.C. 482 and the case of T.B. Suryawanshi. vs. Govt. of Maharastra and others (2000) 10 S.C.C. 599 , also be seen for the same proposition. 6. In view of the discssion as made above, as no error apparent could be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present re\iew application stands dismissed.