JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. Instant review application has been filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 05.01.2018 (wrongly typed as 05.01.2017), whereby the second appeal has been dismissed by the Court. 2. In order to decide the review application, some necessary facts, which would be relevant, are extracted hereunder: Review applicant/appellant filed O.S. No.223 of 1998 Rao Mashkoor Khan and others vs. State of U.P. & others for perpetual/prohibitory injunction on the ground that the predecessors of the review applicant/appellants were the owner of land khasra no.511, admeasuring 7 Bigha 17 Biswa, situated in Village Ranipur, District Haridwar. Khasra no.511 was bifurcated into two parts, Khasra no.511/1 admeasuring 5 Bigha 3 Biswa and khasra no.511/2 admeasuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswa. Khasra no.511/1 was acquired by the State of U.P. for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (for short, B.H.E.L.) whereas the plaintiffs remained the owner of the land i.e. khasra no.511/2 measuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswa. It was contended that the entries regarding land khasra no.511/2 has been wrongly made in the name of Canal/Irrigation Department whereas the plaintiffs are in possession and they have also grown mango orchads there. Defendants (respondents herein) filed their joint written statement denying the plaint allegations. In the written statement, they contended that the land in dispute is recorded in the name of Irrigation/Canal Department, State of U.P. Plaintiff examined himself before the trial court. The trial court, vide judgment dated 18.03.2002, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, State of U.P. filed civil appeal no.21/2002. The first appellate court, after hearing the parties and on perusal of record, by judgment and decree dated 16.11.2012, allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, review applicant/appellant filed the second appeal. 3. This Court, vide order dated 04.03.2013, admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in allowing the first appeal by ignoring and non-considering the documentary evidence (140-C on the record of the trial court) filed by the plaintiffs in regard to the exclusion of Khasra No.511/2 from being acquired? (b) Whether the judgment of lower appellate court can be sustained due to non-consideration of the additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs, in the lower appellate court? 4. On 18.02.2014, the Court passed the following order:- “Mr. (b) Whether the judgment of lower appellate court can be sustained due to non-consideration of the additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs, in the lower appellate court? 4. On 18.02.2014, the Court passed the following order:- “Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate present for the appellants. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Dy. Advocate General present for the State. 10 days time is being given to learned counsel for the appellants to enable him to get a copy of Writ Petition No.14636 of 1982 filed by him before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. List this matter on 04.03.2014 in daily cause list. Interim order dated 04.03.2013 is extended till the next date of listing.” 5. Pursuant to order dated 18.02.2014, review applicant/appellant filed certified copy of writ petition no.14646 of 1982, as also certified copy of the judgment dated 02.09.1996 through Civil Misc. Application CLMA No.12584 of 2015. However, this application was neither pressed by the counsel for the appellatn nor it was taken on record by the Court. Thereafter, on 02.11.2015, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate made a statement before the Court that the case file has been taken by his client from him, so, his name as well as the name of his assisting counsels be deleted from the cause list henceforth. Appellant Mr. Rao Mashroor Khan was present in the Court. He was given time to engage new counsel in the meantime. Thereafter, Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. H.C. Pathak, Advocate appeared for the review applicant/appellant. The matter was adjourned for sometime and subsequently it was released from the Bench and nominated to Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani. On 04.01.2016, the second appeal got dismissed in default. However, said order was recalled and the second appeal was restored to its original number, whereafter Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Senior Counsel appeared to argue the case. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on several dates, the Coordinate Bench dismissed the second appeal, vide judgment dated 05.01.2018. 6. On 04.01.2016, the second appeal got dismissed in default. However, said order was recalled and the second appeal was restored to its original number, whereafter Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Senior Counsel appeared to argue the case. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on several dates, the Coordinate Bench dismissed the second appeal, vide judgment dated 05.01.2018. 6. Now, instant review application has been filed by the appellant on the following grounds:- A. Because there is an error apparent on the face of record in as much as the finding of the first appellate court regarding title of the appellants until 1956, which was not challenged by the defendants before this Hon’ble Court, has not been upset by this Hon’ble Court but the Hon’ble High Court committed an error of law in recording a finding that after 1956 Canal Department became owner. Having confirmed finding of the first appellate court regarding title of the appellant until 1956, there was no reason and/or material or evidence to record a finding that the canal department became owner of the property and thus the judgment and decree suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and the impugned judgment and decree is thus liable to be reviewed and to set aside. B. Because finding of this Hon’ble High Court in the impugned judgment regarding the scope of the WPMS 14636 of 1982 is against the documentary material. The writ petition aforementioned, certified copy whereof was placed on record under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. in its various paragraphs, specifically shows that writ petition aforementioned related to Khasra No.511/1 situated in Ranipur, Haridwar and this Hon’ble High Court committed an error of law in misreading the document so as to take its scope beyond the Khasra No.511/1 and to extended it to Khasra No.511/2. C. Because the finding of this Hon’ble High Court in the impugned judgment and decree regarding acquisition of Khasra No.511/2 is against the material on record and even against the judgment itself wherein the Hon’ble High Court based upon award of S.L.A.O which was placed on record under Order XLI Rule 17 of C.P.C. has arrived at the conclusion that 511/2 was excluded from the scope of acquisition. D. Because finding of the Hon’ble High Court that the suit was wrongly decreed by appellate court despite placing of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgment dated 02.09.1996 on record is absolutely illegal and improper in as much as the judgment dated 02.09.1996 emanated from a writ petition which was filed in connection with property in Khasra No.511/1 only and the judgment aforementioned cannot override the award of S.L.A.O. which was passed on the same subject matter i.e. acquisition of Khasra no.511/2 while writ petition no.14636/82 was filed in connection with dispossession from khasra no.511/1. E. Because the finding of this Hon’ble High Court regarding acquisition of Khasra No.511/2 in 1986 and the same having come to the possession of canal Department is against evidence on record. The appellants are continuing in possession of the property and no acquisition by canal department ever took place. Even the defendant canal department has not come up with any case that any acquisition in 1986 for canal Department took place. F. Because the Hon’ble High Court committed an error of law in discarding a document merely because it was a handwritten document. The certified copy of award by S.L.A.O. was placed on record by way of additional evidence after securing leave of the court under Order XLI Rule 27 which was not rebutted by the respondent but the Hon’ble High Court completely ignored the effect of same upon alleged acquisition. G. Because the conclusion drawn by the appellate court from appreciation of award of S.L.A.O. is absolutely illegal in as much as the document shows that disputed land i.e. land in Khasra number 511/2 was not acquired but the Hon’ble High Court took a view that the award by S.L.A.O. shows that Khasra No.511/2 was not acquired and was excluded as it was earmarked for canal department. The Hon’ble Court to this found that title of canal department is derived means canal department has title. The finding aforementioned is absolutely illegal the only conclusion which can be drawn from the award of S.L.A.O. is that Khasra No.511/2 was not acquired and canal Department had burden to prove/establish that it had any right title or interest in Khasra number 511/2. The finding aforementioned is absolutely illegal the only conclusion which can be drawn from the award of S.L.A.O. is that Khasra No.511/2 was not acquired and canal Department had burden to prove/establish that it had any right title or interest in Khasra number 511/2. H. Because finding of the first appellate court that the appellant had title until 1956 and was not challenged by the defendant canal department and has not been upset by this Hon’ble High Court while there is no pleading much less evidence to show that the appellants right, title or interest came to vest in canal department after 1956 and thus the conclusion drawn by this Hon’ble High Court are absolutely illegal. I. Because the finding upon this by Hon’ble High Court upon what is a substantial question of law is also illegal and against the law. A legal issue which is raised upon the factual foundation already laid before the trial court and first appellate court deserves to be considered even at second appellate stage and this Hon’ble High Court committed an error of law in ignoring that such legal issue should have been considered by first appellate court and by this Hon’ble High Court ad there is no doubt that the question of title, in the case in hand, goes to the root of the matter. J. Because this Hon’ble High Court completely ignored and refused to consider the second question of law which was whether the judgment of the lower appellate court can be sustained due to non-consideration of additional evidence filed by the plaintiff’s in lower appellate court. The question aforementioned is a question of law without any doubt. In case the appellate court failed to consider admitted additional evidence the judgment passed by lower court will perverse and this Hon’ble High Court committed an error of law in recording a finding that a completely new point raised before Hon’ble High Court for the first time would not be a question involved in the case while the appellant grievance was that the additional evidence filed with the leave of the court granted under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. before first appellate court was not considered and this Hon’ble High Court was the only opportunity/forum to raise such grievance. 7. 7. A perusal of record would reveal that Writ Petition no.14636/1982, filed by the petitioner in connection with dispossession from khasra no.511/1, was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2014, and while dismissing the writ petition, a cost of Rs.1,000/- was also saddled upon the review applicant/appellants. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:- “By the impugned communication dated 13/16.11.1981, a copy whereof is annexure-8 to the petition, the Senior Personnel Officer (T), Town Administration Department, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipur, Hardwar apprised Shri Mashkoor Khan, the petitioner no.1, that he was in occupation of 50 bighas of the land of the respondent no.1, situate in village Ranipur, and utilizing the same of the purpose of cultivation. He was also apprised of the fact that he was in unauthorized occupation of the land and was liable to be evicted therefrom and pay damages for unauthorized occupation. Finally, he was advised to vacate the land and remove all the fencing/hedges etc. from the site within three days of the receipt of the communication, failing which further necessary action, as deemed fit in accordance with law, would be taken against him. From the averments made in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the petition itself it is absolutely clear that the land in dispute had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of dwelling houses for the workmen and for other works such as setting up a factory for the manufacture of heavy electrical equipments by the Heavy Electrical (1) Limited, New Delhi, and that the land acquisition proceedings had become final on 16th March, 1963 on which date the award had finally been made. This clearly goes to show that petitioners do not have any legally cognizable and judicially enforceable legal right to have the impugned communication quashed regarding the disputed land. Apart from the fact that petitioners do not have any legal right in respect of the disputed land, the impugned communication merely indicates the intention of the respondent no.1 to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law. It cannot be gainsaid that nobody can be prevented from taking action in accordance with law. All told, in the opinion of the Court, the petition is mis-conceived, it is rather frivolous. It cannot be gainsaid that nobody can be prevented from taking action in accordance with law. All told, in the opinion of the Court, the petition is mis-conceived, it is rather frivolous. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs.1000/- only and shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondent no.1 within a period of three months from today.” 8. Writ Petition No.14636 of 1982 was filed by the plaintiffs/writ petitioners on the ground that they are the owner of land khasra no.511/1 and the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the said land. During the pendency of said writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, the review applicant/appellant filed the aforesaid suit in the year 1988 claiming rights over land khasra no.511/1. The Coordinate Bench, while dismissing the appeal, has answered both the substantial questions of law against the review applicants/appellants and has categorically recording a finding that khasra no.511/1 admeasuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswa situated in Village Ranipur, Haridwar, was acquired by the State and in lieu thereof compensation was also paid to the predecessors of the review applicants, vide judgment and award dated 16.03.1963. However, inspite of receiving compensation, review applicants/appellants have claimed rights over the acquired land i.e. khasra no.511/1 of Village Ranipur, District Haridwar. 9. During the pendency of writ petition before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, review applicants/appellants initiated another inning of litigation, claiming rights over land Khasra no.511/2 measuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswa. 10. It is contended that the first appellate court has not considered paper no.140-C. I have gone through paper no.140-C. The Coordinate Bench, in the judgment under review, has considered the veracity of paper no.140-C, which has been claimed by the review applicants/appellants as an official gazette. A perusal of paper no.140-C would reveal that it a photocopy; neither there is a seal of any Department nor certified copy of gazette has been produced. The Coordinate Bench has recorded findings in regard to paper no.140-C that it is merely a handwritten paper and no authentic document has been filed on its behalf. A perusal of paper no.140-C would reveal that it a photocopy; neither there is a seal of any Department nor certified copy of gazette has been produced. The Coordinate Bench has recorded findings in regard to paper no.140-C that it is merely a handwritten paper and no authentic document has been filed on its behalf. However, finding has been recorded by the Coordinate Bench that S.L.A.O. while passing the award dated 16.03.1963 has observed that the land khasra no.511/2 measuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswa is the government property and has not been transferred to the BHEL. Relevant para of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- “25. Land: (a) Village Ranipur is one of the eight villages which have been wholly or partly acquired for the project. A major portion of this village has been acquired. The northern portion of its has been brought under acquisition and the southern portion has been left out. To the East of this village is village Jwalapur and towards its West, are villages Raoli Mehdud and Jamalpur Khurd. (b) The total area acquired in this village was originally 1999-11-0 bighas out of which an area measuring 183-8-0 bighas of land belonging to the Canal Deptt. Has been released by the Heavy Electricals. This area is no longer required by the Heavy Electricals. No inferior interests either exist or have been claimed any private persons. Since it is already Govt. property and has not been transferred to the Heavy Electricals, no compensation for this land is payable and the land continues to be the property of the Irrigation Department. The plot Numbers and area of this land are given below :- Plot No. Area in bigha Plot No. Area in Bigha 361 4-19-0 416/3 9-1-0 508/2 33-1-0 362/1 0-10-0 510/2 0-5-0 363 4-3-0 511/2 2-14-0 371 11-3-0 512/2 1-0-0 372 20-5-0 515 3-19-0 451 40-11-0 517/2 0-3-0 452M 14-12-0 518 0-11-0 458/3 2-13-0 520 8-11-0 459 5-8-0 521M 1-16-0 460/3M 10-2-0 485/4 8-1-0 Total 183-8-0 11. Undisputedly, Award was passed by S.L.A.O. Saharanpur on 16.03.1963 wherein it was held that the land khasra no.511/2 measuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswa is the government land. The judgment and award was passed in presence and in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs/review applicants. The findings recorded, in regard to land khasra no.511/2, was not challenged by the predecessors of the review applicants or by the review applicants. The judgment and award was passed in presence and in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs/review applicants. The findings recorded, in regard to land khasra no.511/2, was not challenged by the predecessors of the review applicants or by the review applicants. However, in the plaint, it is contended that the State, at any point of time, has succeeded to mutate the land in the name of Canal Department. Admittedly, the name of the review applicants/appellants was not recorded in revenue records on the date of filing the suit. If it is alleged that revenue entries were changed thereby entering the name of Canal Department in the revenue record, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to challenge the revenue entries firstly. Furthermore, simple relief of prohibitory injunction was granted in the suit; declaration of rights was not sought by the plaintiffs. No doubt, revenue entries do not confer any right or title but unless it is not challenged in a competent court of law, it gives an impression or presumption of title over the property. Since the revenue entries has not been challenged and no relief has been sought in regard thereto, the trial court though decreed the suit in favour of the appellants/review applicants, but the first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, after having considered the evidence available. In the second appeal, the Coordinate Bench has recorded reasons and has decided the substantial questions of law against the review applicant/appellant. 12. An application for review would be considered when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to be reheard. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 1 , has held that scope of review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that review of an order is permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which has to be decided on the facts of each and every case. Paragraph 1 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “1. Certain questions of fact and law were raised on behalf of the parties when the review petitions were heard. Paragraph 1 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “1. Certain questions of fact and law were raised on behalf of the parties when the review petitions were heard. Review petitions are ordinarily restricted to the confines of the principles enunciated in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but in this case, we gave counsel for the parties ample opportunity to satisfy us that the judgment and order under review suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record and that permitting the order to stand would occasion a failure of justice or that the judgment suffered from some material irregularity which required correction in review. The scope of a review petition is very limited and the submissions advanced were made mainly on questions of fact. As has been repeatedly indicated by this Court, review of a judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is permissible, but an error apparent on the face of the record has to be decided on the facts of each case as an erroneous decision by itself does not warrant a review of each decision. In order to appreciate the decision rendered on the several review petitions which were taken up together for consideration, it is necessary to give a background in which the judgment and order under review came to be rendered.” 14. Further, in the case of Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRS Vs. Motilal (dead) through LRS, (2009) 14 SCC 663 , Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the Court, in a review petition, does not sit in appeal over its own order and rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Paragraph 10 of the said decision is relevant which is extracted hereunder: “10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [ AIR 2000 SC 1650 ], this Court held: 440 "56. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [ AIR 2000 SC 1650 ], this Court held: 440 "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. 15. In the court of Lily Thomas & Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors. [ (2000) 6 SCC 224 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review….” 16. In the present case, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record. Review application is accordingly dismissed.