Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2297 (RAJ)

Haret v. Maharaj Singh

2008-10-01

G.K.TIWARI

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble TIWARI, M.—This is a review petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act') against the order dated 19.7.01 of the learned Single Bench of the Board of Revenue passed in revision/LR/11/97. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners had filed a revision petition under Section 84 of the Act against the order dated 31.1.1997 by which Sub-Divisional Officer Bharatpur had rejected the review petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 1.12.1990. The instant revision is filed against the impugned order dated 31.1.1997 of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur. 3. I have heard both the learned counsels. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that learned Single Bench did not consider the sale deed presented before him. The learned Single Bench erred in stating in its judgment that the sale deed was not presented whereas it was presented. But learned Single Bench did not consider it. This is an error apparent on the face of record and as such the order dated 19.7.2001 of the learned Single Bench should be reviewed and rescinded. 5. Opposing the contention of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that this matter is pertaining to the mutation proceeding which is fiscal in nature and does not decide any right or title. If the petitioners are claiming any right of tenancy they should have filed suit before the competent revenue court for declaration of their rights. The scope of review is very limited. Revenue authority cannot act as an appellate authority as his held in 1997 DNJ (2) SC 409 and AIR 1995 (SC) 455 . The order can be reviewed only for correction of mistake, as is held in AIR 2000 SC 1950. As such review petition is not maintainable. 6. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully perused the order dated 19.7.2001 of the learned Single Bench and gone through the record available on the file of the Court. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 19.7.2001 of the learned Single Bench shows that the alleged sale deed was not presented in the court though it was referred to by the party concerned. The petitioners have argued that this sale deed was put up before the learned Single Bench. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 19.7.2001 of the learned Single Bench shows that the alleged sale deed was not presented in the court though it was referred to by the party concerned. The petitioners have argued that this sale deed was put up before the learned Single Bench. I have perused the concerned filed of the learned Single Bench but the alleged sale deed is not found there. There is no mention of the alleged sale deed in any of the order sheet of the Court also. As such the contention of the petitioners in respect of the alleged sale deed is not tenable. 8. The matter was a revision against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer Bharatpur to review his own decision dated 1.12.1990 in respect of an appeal filed against a mutation order. This does not decide right title; mutation proceeding is essential fiscal in nature. The petitioners are free t raise their claim of alleged right before the competent revenue Court. 9. The scope of review is limited. According to AIR 2000 (SC) 1650 an order can be reviewed for correction of mistake but not to substitute views. There is neither any error apparent on the face of record nor is there any discovery of important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence could not be produced before the Court. Under the garb of review, reviewing court cannot act as an appellate Court as is held in AIR (SC) 455 and 1997 DNJ (SC) 409. 10. In view of the above discussion, this review petition is without any force. As such it is dismissed in limine at the stage of admission. Pronounced.