Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 178 (UTT)

Vijay Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-08

ALOK SINGH, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. The application, seeking condonation of the delay in preferring this Review application, is not opposed and the delay is, therefore, condoned. 2. This application is filed seeking review of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 173 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018. Allotment of land to the fourth respondent, in Dehradun city, was questioned in the Writ Petition. In the order under review, the Division Bench held that the fourth respondent had suffered disability during the war, and land was allotted for his benefit. Finding no merit, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby the present review application. 3. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the review applicant, would submit that the Division Bench failed to notice that the fourth respondent was ineligible for allotment of land in view of Section 198(1)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; the proceedings dated 22.01.2015, whereby the review applicant was allotted land, itself refers to Section 198(1)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; the fourth respondent belongs to Pithoragarh circle and could, therefore, have been allotted land only in Pithoragarh circle, and not in Dehradun; and the authorities, themselves, had earlier rejected the application of the fourth respondent on this score. 4. Section 198(1)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 stipulates that, in the admission of persons to land as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or asami under Section 195 or Section 197, the Land Management Committee shall, subject to any order made by a Court under Section 178, observe the following order of preference : (a) landless widow, sons, unmarried daughters or parents residing in the circle of a person who has lost his life by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union. 5. It is not disputed before us by Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the review applicant, that the fourth respondent falls under clause (b) of Section 198(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as he was disabled by enemy action while in active service in the armed forces. 5. It is not disputed before us by Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the review applicant, that the fourth respondent falls under clause (b) of Section 198(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as he was disabled by enemy action while in active service in the armed forces. The submission of the learned counsel, for the review applicant, is that clause (b) of Section 198(1) confers a right on a person, who has suffered disability in enemy action, for allotment of land in the circle in which he resides, and since the fourth respondent belongs to Pithoragarh circle, land, if any, could only have been allotted to him in Pithoragarh circle, and not in Dehradun. 6. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the review applicant that the fourth respondent has been residing in Dehradun. The concept of “a person hailing from a particular place” is not referable to any statutory provision, or a provision having the force of law, and are all matters of opinion which vary from one person to another. The words “a person residing in the circle” in Section 198(1)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 refers only to a person who is residing at the place where land is being allotted. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is residing at Dehradun, and allotment of land to him in Dehradun does not violate Section 198(1)(b) of the 1950 Act. 7. In review proceedings the contentions, urged on merits, are, ordinarily, not examined as these are all matters within the purview of an appellate Court. There are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others : AIR 1979 SC 1047 ; Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and other : AIR 1963 SC 1909 ; Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR 1995 SC 455 ]. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal, and should be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. (Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR 1995 SC 455 ). 8. A party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. [Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1965 SC 845 ; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi : (1980) 2 SCC 167 ]. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.” [Sow Chandra Kante & another vs. Sheikh Habib : (1975) 1 SCC 674 ; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi : (1980) 2 SCC 167 ]. In review proceedings, this Court would interfere only if the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. We are satisfied that the said order does not suffer from any such infirmity. 9. A feeble submission is made by Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel, that there are several others in Dehradun who fall within the same category. The present writ petition has been filed not by a person who suffered disability in enemy action, while in active service in the armed forces, but in public interest. We see no reason therefore to examine this contention urged on behalf of the review applicant, that too in review proceedings. 10. Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to entertain this review application. We see no reason therefore to examine this contention urged on behalf of the review applicant, that too in review proceedings. 10. Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to entertain this review application. The review application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.