Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 868 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-18

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a review petition u/Sec. 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 read with Section 5 Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 against the judgment dated 27.10.2005 passed by this Bench in revision No. 8/2000 and 65/2003/Colo/Bikaner. 2. Briefly, the facts of this review petition are that the revision petition was decided by this Bench on 27.10.2005 and by that order revision petition of Suresh Kumar was rejected and the order of learned Additional Colonisation Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner was upheld. The revision petition discussed in detail the merits of this case and this review petition has been presented to justify that on the basis of the merits of the case order dated 27.10.2005 needs to be reviewed and set aside. All the issues raised in the review petition have already been discussed but in the interest of proper justice to the petitioner, it would be necessary to make a mention of the grounds of review. The petitioner has stated the grounds of review as under: 3. That the land was initially allotted to the petitioner but when it was found that the allotted land belonged to the forest area then different land was prayed for and was allotted. He has also argued that the allotment done by learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner was wrongly set aside by the Addl. Colonisation Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, whereas the petitioner was bona fide agriculturist. It has been pleaded that the application of the applicant has been declared as Benami by the decision in the revision petition, whereas this was not a Benami application. He has tried to justify that in address of the village Bikaner and there is no house number or Mohalla in a village; as such he could not mention the detailed address. He also argued that notices were not properly served. It has also been argued that the address given by the petitioner was Suresh Kumar Bishnoi resident of Village Bikaner Tehsil Bikaner Distt. Bikaner. He claims that it was a bona fide address and he has not hidden any fact by mentioning such an address. He also argued that this is not the case of misrepresentation and he has also argued that the allottee should not suffer due to the mistake of the allotting authorities. Bikaner. He claims that it was a bona fide address and he has not hidden any fact by mentioning such an address. He also argued that this is not the case of misrepresentation and he has also argued that the allottee should not suffer due to the mistake of the allotting authorities. He has argued that the order passed by this Bench dated 27.10.2005 needs to be reviewed as the facts have not been properly appreciated. 4. Having heard learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner and having carefully perused the review petition and having carefully examined the decision given by this Bench, I come to the following conclusions : (a) This Bench came to the conclusion that the address given by the petitioner Suresh Kumar for getting the allotment done was as under : lqjsk dqekj xzke chdkusj rglhy chdkusj ftyk chdkusj (b) No proper explanation has been given on this issue which has already been decided and no fact has been brought before us which can suggest an error which is apparent on the face of the record. It was decided that this address in the application suggests that it was a Benami application because nobody, not even the wisest person can locate a person in a big city like Bikaner on this address. (c) In his spot verification the Tehsildar made the following report : ^^vkt fnukad dks i-g- dks ysdj ekSds ij igqapk tkap djus ij ik;k fd ÁkFkhZ chdkusj dk fuoklh gSA ÁkFkhZ Hkwfeghu gS vkSj iskk [ksrhgj etnwj gSA** (d) From the bare perusal of this report it was found that it seems to be a case of collusion between Tehsil authority and the petitioner because no mention has been made by the Tehsildar as to which place he reached and the person acting on behalf of the Tehsildar has failed to write as to which place in Bikaner city the applicant belonged. (e) It was discussed in detail that from the perusal of the application it could not be ascertained whether the applicant was a bona fide agriculturist or landless labourer or a landless person eligible for allotment. (f) The allotment was cancelled by learned Addl. Commissioner Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and that order was upheld by this Bench. (e) It was discussed in detail that from the perusal of the application it could not be ascertained whether the applicant was a bona fide agriculturist or landless labourer or a landless person eligible for allotment. (f) The allotment was cancelled by learned Addl. Commissioner Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and that order was upheld by this Bench. In the review petition nothing new has been mentioned which has not been discussed in the revision petition, neither the new facts have been brought before us nor any mistake has been pointed out which is apparent on the face of the record. The scope of review is very limited and review cannot be used as an instrument getting the judgment re-written or it can neither be used for re-examination of the facts already on the record. By this review petition the petitioner has attempted to get the judgment re-written on the basis of some facts which already existed on the record. The revision petition decided by this Bench relied on the record of lower courts which was available even at the time of making the earlier judgment and even today there is no additional new record, no additional fact and there is no error which is apparent on the face of the record. As such this review petition does not find a place for considering for review. 5. Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court have held in several matters that the scope of review is not an instrument for re-examination of the facts and it cannot be utilised as an instrument for re-rewriting the judgment. The scope of review does not provide an opportunity of an extra appeal. It has been held that even when there is some error in appreciation of the issue and facts even then the scope of review is not attracted. In this respect it is important to rely on the authorities of the Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court. 6. As per the rules the scope of review is very limited and review is not a method of re-examination of a judgment. It does not even give any scope to the court to sit in appeal over the judgment pronounced by the same court. The scope permits only to correct the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. It does not even give any scope to the court to sit in appeal over the judgment pronounced by the same court. The scope permits only to correct the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, AIR 1995 SC page 455 clearly held that the error apparent on the face of the record should be such which should strike immediately looking at the face of the record and which does not require any long drawn process of reasoning or examination of law. The courts are not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence but only restrict themselves for correction of the mistakes which are visible on the face of the record. In Ajit Kumar Rath vs. Orissa State AIR 2000 SC 85 , the Honble Apex Court has held that the power is not absolute and it is subject to restrictions indicate in Order 47 C.P.C. A review cannot be claimed as a remedy for a fresh hearing or for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The power of review can be exercised only for correction of patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed in establishing it. The mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is one which is self-evident and does not require a process of reasoning and it is distinct from erroneous decision. Rehearing the matter or detecting an error in the earlier decision and then correcting the same do not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of review. Jurisdiction of review cannot be used as an appellate jurisdiction in disguise. Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Mohinder Singh, 2003(1) WLC (SC) page 499 considered the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. which is reproduced here : "Civil Procedure Code, O. 47 Rule 1 – Scope – Hearing of review does not mean giving one more chance for rehearing matter already disposed of – High Court in hearing review as if it was rehearing whole petition overstepped its limits – Order of High Court set aside and original order restored." 7. Finally it would be relevant to refer to RRT 2005(1) page 545 in which Honble Supreme Court has decided a principle that "view taken in judgment may be erroneous but cannot be a ground for review". 8. It has already been discussed as per the address given by the applicant it is not possible to locate such a person where he is residing and his claim that there are no mohalla or house number in a village. That situation is not acceptable in reference to city of Bikaner which has been mentioned as village Bikaner. City of Bikaner has Mohalla number, house number, ward number but none of the above identity has been mentioned and it has already been explained in the order under review. Bikaner city is not a small village but it is a city of division headquarter. As such there is no argument on which this issue of misrepresentation can be reviewed. 10. Nothing new has been pointed out in the review petition which can suggest that order dated 27.10.2005 passed by this Bench was beyond jurisdiction and since the order was passed with proper jurisdiction; hence it cannot be argued that the order was passed beyond jurisdiction as such in circumstances when the order is not ab-initio void then the scope of jurisdiction will remain restricted to the mistake which are apparent on the face of the record. In this case there are no such mistakes and there is no scope of review to be entertained. 11. As such this review petition does not justify that it should be entertained and admitted and there are no grounds for acceptance of review petition. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed. Pronounced.