JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. By medium of this Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have sought review of judgment dated 2.5.2015, whereby LPA preferred by the appellants was dismissed. 2. The review has primarily been sought on the ground that as per clause 11 of the Grant of Nautor Scheme, 1975, a restriction of only 15 years in respect of alienation was provided, whereas the Court has taken this period to be 20 years. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner had only clarified his own order and this Court has wrongly concluded that he had in fact reviewed it. The petitioner has also sought to invoke the provisions of the Government Grants Act to claim complete ownership and lastly has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Purshotam vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1990 (2) SLC 206 to contend that alteration effected by a notification can only apply to a transaction subsequent to the date of said notification and cannot affect a concluded contract. 3. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “Code’) reads thus:- “114. Review — Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved : (a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court. (c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.” Order 47 of the Code reads thus:- “Review Application for review of judgment :- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved :- (a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed. (b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed. (c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.” 4. The words “any other sufficient reason” as contained above have been interpreted in the case of Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, 1992 AIR (PC) 112 and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most. Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Others, 1995 1 SCR 520 to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule.” 5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that it was on the basis of reply filed by the official respondents to the writ petition, wherein they admitted the time restriction for transfer to be 20 years and not 15 years, that such findings regarding embargo on transfer was recorded. Indisputably, it was the official respondents, who alone were the best authorities that could have stated about the time period of the embargo placed on the transfer. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Deputy Commissioner had not reviewed his order and had in fact only clarified the same. This issue has already been dealt with in detail by this Court, as is evident from paragraphs 23 to 25 of the impugned order. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Deputy Commissioner had not reviewed his order and had in fact only clarified the same. This issue has already been dealt with in detail by this Court, as is evident from paragraphs 23 to 25 of the impugned order. 7. In so far as the applicability of the provisions of the Government Grants Act to claim complete ownership is concerned, suffice it to say that once the grant has been made to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under a special scheme i.e. H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme of 1975, then the grant would essentially abide and will be governed by the provisions of the Scheme and not by the provisions of Government Grants Act. 8. Regarding the applicability of the ratio of the judgment in Purshotam’s case supra, suffice it to say that not only this is not the pleaded case of the petitioner, but this point was not even argued and therefore, there was any occasion for this Court to have considered the submissions as are now sought to be made by the petitioners and therefore, even this contention of the petitioners is rejected being devoid of any merit. 9. This Court in M/s. Harvel Agua India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of H.P. and Others, Review Petition No. 4084 of 2013, decided on 9.7.2014, after taking note of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “10. Thus what appears to be more than settled law is that an error contemplated under the rule must be such, which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must essentially be an error of inadvertence and definitely something more than a mere error and must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or inquiry only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. However, under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the record and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the order. However, under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the record and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the order. It must be remembered that in exercise of the powers of review this court cannot sit in appeal over its own order. Re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law, since the power of review is an exception to the general rule that once the judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It has to be remembered that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. 11. The error contemplated under the rule is that the same should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The wrong decision can be subject to appeal to a higher form but a review is not permissible on the ground that court proceeded on wrong proposition of law. It is not permissible for erroneous decision to be “re-heard and corrected.” There is clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the former can be corrected only by a higher form, the latter can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction. A review of judgment is not maintainable if the only ground for review is that point is not dealt in correct perspective so long the point has been dealt with and answered. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot create a ground for review. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order, which has the normal feature of finality.” From the above observation, certain broad principles can be deduced regarding the maintainability/non-maintainability of the review petition:- (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. (iii) Any other sufficient reason. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (v) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negative. (x) Review is not maintainable on the basis of a subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the Court or of a superior Court. (xi) While considering an application for review, court must confine its adjudication with regard to the material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (xii) Mere discovery of a new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The parties seeking review has also to show that such mater or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. We may clarify that the aforesaid principles are only broad guidelines and not caste-iron imperatives. 10. The parties seeking review has also to show that such mater or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. We may clarify that the aforesaid principles are only broad guidelines and not caste-iron imperatives. 10. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the questions now sought to be raised in this petition cannot be gone into because the power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision is incorrect or erroneous on merit, as the same lies within the ambit of higher court having appellate power which alone is in a position to correct the error committed by the subordinate courts by virtue of power of appeal conferred on the said court by some statute, of course subject to the exception that the error is otherwise apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing and this Court while exercising power of review cannot sit in appeal over its own order. 11. Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the petitioners have failed to make out a case within the four corners of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we find no merit in this Review Petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.