Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 910 (RAJ)

State of Raj. v. Shokat Khan

2007-05-01

R.N.ARVIND

body2007
Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment dated 25.3.2006 passed by this Bench in Revision/TA/4829/2004/Jodhpur. 2. Brief facts of this review petition are that learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur has given khatedari rights of the disputed land bearing khasra No. 740 old khasra No. 741/53 area 27 bighas 3 biswas of village and Tehsil Jodhpur on 28.11.56. These khatedari rights were rejected by learned District Collector, Jodhpur by his orders dated 28.5.70 and 9.6.70. Against this order of District Collector an appeal was preferred before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer Camp Jodhpur who by his order dated 12.2.2004 accepted the appeal. Against this judgment a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue which was rejected by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.3.2006 this is a review petition. 3. Arguing in support of the review petition learned advocate on behalf o the petitioner reiterated the stand taken in revision petition. It was arguing that administrative action cannot be challenged through judicial process, hence the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority was illegal and improper. It was also argued that the khatedari rights given by S.D.O., Jodhpur were ab initio void, hence learned R.A.A. was not competent to give khatedari rights to the non-petitioners/appellants. In this matter it is an error apparent on the face of the record, hence this review petition deserves to be accepted. 4. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioners is that the scope of review is very limited and arguments once raised during the course of appeal cannot be discussed against through review petition. It was also argued that the order of this Bench has been concluded with detail discussions on each of the points and it has already been discussed that learned Distt. Collector has no authority to withdraw khatedari rights through an administrative order. It was also argued that the order of learned Distt. Collector was challenged in judicial court and the State lost the case upto Honble High Court. As such there is no force for acceptance of the review petition. 5. Collector has no authority to withdraw khatedari rights through an administrative order. It was also argued that the order of learned Distt. Collector was challenged in judicial court and the State lost the case upto Honble High Court. As such there is no force for acceptance of the review petition. 5. 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) Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court have held in several matters that the remedy 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 judgment is erroneous the scope of review is not attracted. (b) 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. 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 indicated in Order 47 CPC. A review cannot be claimed as a remedy for a fresh hearing or for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. (c) The power of review can be exercised only for correction of patent error of law or fact which states in the face without any elaborate argument being needed in establishing it. A review cannot be claimed as a remedy for a fresh hearing or for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. (c) The power of review can be exercised only for correction of patent error of law or fact which states in the face without any elaborate argument being needed in establishing it. The 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 of 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 appellant 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 CPC which is reproduced here:– "Civil Procedure Code, O. 47 R. 1 — Scope — Hearing of review does not mean giving one more chance of 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". (d) 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". (e) Nothing new has been pointed out in the review petition which can suggest that the order dated 25.3.2006 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 t be entertained. 6. 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. 7. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. Pronounced.