JUDGMENT : Marli Vankung, J. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The instant review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w section 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 (CPC) for the review of the Judgement & Order dated 29.11.2023 passed by this Court in RFA No. 29 of 2023 A/o of Civil Suit No. 15/2022. 3. The brief background of the case leading to the filing of the instant review petition is that the petitioner was issued landed property covered under LSC No. 103101/01/954 of 1989 located at Zemabawk, Mitthla Mual which was inherited by the petitioner from her father, Shri. J.Thanseia (late). The private respondent No.1 was also having a plot of land inherited from his father, Shri. Zahluna (late), which the respondent No.1 had divided into two LSCs. However, the petitioner, sometime in the month of January, 2021 found that the respondent No. 1 had the displayed two LSC Numbers viz. LSC No. 1702 of 1985 and LSC No. 3081 of 1986 within the boundary limits of the petitioner’s property. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the respondent No. 4 and accordingly a spot verification was conducted and the respondent No. 3 issued a Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 declaring that, the property of the Petitioner covered by LSC No. 954 of 1989 had an excess area than the original House Pass, as a result, the landed area of the LSCs of the respondent was found to have lesser landed area than the original pass and did not to encroach upon the LSC of the petitioner. As such, being highly aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 15 of 2022 praying for a decree to declare the Settlement Order dt.17.01.2022 as null and void since no spot verification was conducted and to declare the Petitioner as the owner of the landed area covered by LSC No. 103101/01/954 of 1989. It was also the prayer of the Petitioner to cancel the LSC No. 301 of 1986 & LSC No. 1702 of 1985 issued to the Respondent No. 1 and to evict the Respondent No. 1 from the property of the Petitioner. 4. It was also the prayer of the Petitioner to cancel the LSC No. 301 of 1986 & LSC No. 1702 of 1985 issued to the Respondent No. 1 and to evict the Respondent No. 1 from the property of the Petitioner. 4. The respondent No. 1 had submitted his preliminary objections praying for conducting hearing on the maintainability of the suit by invoking the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the learned Court of Senior Civil Judge – III, after hearing the parties, vide its Order dated 24.04.2023, rejected the Civil Suit No. 15 of 2022, by invoking the provision of Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Ld. Trial Court was of the view that by virtue of Section 76 , 89, 90 & 96 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in the present case and the Petitioner/Plaintiff should approach the proper forum as provided under Section 89 (3) of the 2013 Act. 5. Being aggrieved with the Order dated 24.04.2023, the Petitioner herein, filed the Regular First Appeal No. 29 of 2023, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be said to have been barred from entertaining Civil Suit No. 15 of 2022 by virtue of Section 97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013. That under Section 97 (b) of the Act, the Civil Courts can entertain suits between private parties for the purpose of establishing any private rights in case it is affected by any entry in any land record. He had relied upon the judgment of a coordinate bench at the Principal seat in Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. Vs. Birendra Kumar Choudhury, reported in (2002) 3 GLR 473 (para 3, 4, 18 & 19) . The learned counsel had also contended that section 96 (2) (f) of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act, 2013, relates the distribution of land or allotment of land is in respect to only new allotment of land, whereas, the instant case is with regards to overlapping of LSCs issued to the parties and within the preview of the civil court. It was also contended that the action of the Director in passing the Settlement Order dt. It was also contended that the action of the Director in passing the Settlement Order dt. 17.01.2022 was not an order passed by a Revenue Court, but an order made after considering the complaint filed by the petitioner regarding the overlapping of LSCs. He had also submitted that there was no specific government order authorizing a revenue officer to act as a Revenue Court as provided under section 77 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 and hence revenue courts were not functional. 6. The contention of the private respondent No. 1 on the other hand was that under section 76 of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act, all revenue officers are authorized and competent to settle the dispute between the parties in the Revenue Court. It was also contended that the appellant had approached the Revenue Court vide its letter dated 07.01.2021 and accordingly, when the Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022, was passed by the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement, Mizoram, Aizawl it was an order of the Revenue court and if aggrieved, the petitioner should have approached the Appellate Court i.e., Commissioner Secretary as per section 89 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013. 7. Thereafter, this court vide its Judgment dated 29.11.2023, in Regular First Appeal No. 29/2023 dismissed the appeal by observing that as follows : “It is also seen that though section 97 (b) provides that the Civil Courts are not prevented from entertaining Suits between private parties for the purpose of establishing any private right, in case it is affected by any entry in any land record. However, in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant had first approached the Revenue Court for settlement of their dispute vide the letter dated 07.01.2021 which was heard and considered and a Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 was made as provided under section 76 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013. Thus, considering the fact that since the appellant had initially approached the Revenue Court vide a letter dated 07.01.2021 requesting the Respondent no.4 to take necessary action and to solve their problems, the Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 was made by the Respondent No.3, Director Land Revenue Department as a Revenue Court after hearing both the parties. Thus, considering the fact that since the appellant had initially approached the Revenue Court vide a letter dated 07.01.2021 requesting the Respondent no.4 to take necessary action and to solve their problems, the Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 was made by the Respondent No.3, Director Land Revenue Department as a Revenue Court after hearing both the parties. This Settlement Order being the decision of the Revenue Court this court finds that, if aggrieved by the Settlement Order, the appropriate step to be taken by the appellant, was to approach the Appellate Court which is the Commissioner Secretary as per Section 89 of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act.” This court also held that the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this court in Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (Supra) is not appropriately applicable in the instant case, wherein the cited case relates to the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in Title Suit No. 207/98, which is a dispute with regarding to the title and interest over immovable properties. 8. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioner in filing the review petition submitted that from the facts of the case in the Civil Suit No. 15 of 2022 A/o Regular First Appeal No. 29 of 2023, it was clear that the case actually relates to the declaration of title and interest over the immoveable property which was encroached upon by the respondent and therefore, the case of Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. Vs. Birendra Kumar Choudhury & Anr. Vs. Birendrakumar Choudhury reported in (2002) 3 GLR 473 (para 3, 4, 18 & 19) is applicable in the instant case. The learned counsel submits the facts of the case in Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. is that the case was filed for the proper partition of the landed property in dispute and for declaration of right and title over the landed property. The petitioners had initially moved the Revenue Court and thereafter being aggrieved, they moved the Civil Court. The coordinate bench of this court in the principal seat held that in view of the provisions under section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886, the Civil Court is the absolute authority to adjudicate a dispute relating to the title and interest over the immovable property. The coordinate bench of this court in the principal seat held that in view of the provisions under section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886, the Civil Court is the absolute authority to adjudicate a dispute relating to the title and interest over the immovable property. The learned counsel submitted that Regulations No. 62 and Regulation No. 154 of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886 are similar to Sections 96 & 97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act and that in the Civil Suit 15 of 2022, the plaintiff/petitioner had also filed the plaint for the declaration of ownership and title over the landed property. The learned counsel thus submitted that case was therefore squarely covered by the decision in the case of Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr.( supra) and this court in RFA no.29 of 2023 was mistaken in finding that it was not ‘appropriately applicable. The learned counsel in all fairness also submitted that he might have failed in not pressing strongly enough on the point that the petitioner had also prayed for the declaration of title over the landed property. 9. The learned counsel further led this court to the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Revenue department, by submitting that the petitioner had not approached the Revenue court under Section 76 of the Revenue Act, but that she had filed a complaint to the Joint director of survey when the respondents had erected boundary pillars within her land. The learned counsel submitted that this court had mistakenly observed that “it was an admitted fact that the appellant had first approached the Revenue Court for settlement of their dispute.” He therefore submits that the impugned order of the Settlement Officer dated 17.01.2022, is not an order made by the Revenue court. 10. The learned counsel submitted that the Revenue department had clarified that as per Sec. 106 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act 2013, the Civil Court is only barred to set aside or modify any order made in respect of land revenue assessment, collection of land revenue or taxes or imposition of penalty on arrear. As such, there is no bar for civil court to make decision in dispute regarding boundary possession and ownership of property. As such, there is no bar for civil court to make decision in dispute regarding boundary possession and ownership of property. The learned counsel also submitted that besides the above clarification, during the pendency of the instant review petition it was also clarified that while reading section 97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, ‘section 93’ should be read as ‘ Section 96 ’ and that section ‘93’ was a clerical mistake made by the Revenue Department. Thus in the that in light of the second clarification issued by the Revenue department, the civil court is the proper forum and therefore this court may exercise its power to review its decision in RFA No. 29 of 2023. 11. The learned counsel relied on the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Perry Kansangra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in (2019) VOL 20 SCC 753 para 15.1 and para 33 , wherein the Apex Court had laid down the conditions under which a review petition may be entertained, one of the conditions being that the power of review can be exercised for any sufficient reason and submits that this includes a misconception of any fact or law by the court or even an advocate. The review can also be considered onthe 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. The learned counsel submitted that the above grounds are appropriately applicable in the instant review petition. 12. Per contra, Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable since the grounds taken are in a form of an appeal and not a review petition. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 para 19 wherein it was held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and that mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 para 19 wherein it was held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and that mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. That if the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. That the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but 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 like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. The learned counsel thus submitted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the findings of this court he should have preferred an appeal and not a review. 13. The learned counsel also submitted that because of the increasing number of cases, the Revenue Department has also been given the power to decide disputes between the parties regarding the boundary of the landed property and alternative dispute mechanism are also greatly encouraged to tackle the huge backlog of cases in the courts. The officers of the revenue department are also empowered to make their own decisions in boundary matters wherein, the revenue department officials are an expert in the field and even the civil courts still need the expertise of the revenue officers in boundary disputes. He submitted that the instant case is a boundary dispute and not a title suit wherein the case of the parties is that their respected LSC’s are over lapping each other. He submitted that concerning the above facts and circumstances of the case the Revenue Department is the appropriate authority to look into the matter, wherein a spot verification was duly conducted which iswithin the domain of the Revenue Department. He submitted that on the plain reading of the prayer portion of the plaint, the prayer was for an order declaring that the spot verification conducted is baseless. He submitted that on the plain reading of the prayer portion of the plaint, the prayer was for an order declaring that the spot verification conducted is baseless. The learned counsel thus submitted that the Settlement order is arising out of a boundary dispute and therefore, the case of the petitioner was within the domain of the revenue officers and not a civil court. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that in Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (supra), the court held that a Civil Court can decide on the title of the disputed property. The court had observed that from section 154 and section 62 of the Regulation, it can be safely said that the civil court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters relating to title over the property, but if any claim is made regarding perfect partition, no civil court shall exercise its jurisdiction as envisaged under section 154 which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court including perfect partition. The learned counsel submitted that the cited case deals with the partition of the land, wherein, the petitioner being unhappy with the partition of the land had approached the court, claiming for title over the land, whereas, the present case is regarding the boundary dispute of the landed properties of the parties, when the private respondents had erected boundary pillars and there is no dispute regarding the title of their LSCs, and therefore not applicable. 15. The learned counsel also submitted that even if in matters relating to boundary dispute, the parties may be having the option to approach the civil court or the revenue court, however, in the instant case, the petitioners had preferred to approach the Revenue court, and the Revenue court had passed the order dated 17.01.2022. He thus submitted that if any of the parties are aggrieved by such an order, the appropriate step is to file an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under section 89 of the Revenue Act. 16. The learned counsel further submitted that regarding the clarification made by the Revenue department, that there was a typographical mistake in section 97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act 2013, wherein ‘section 93’ should be read as ‘section 96’, such a clarification would also need the amendment of section 97 and thus, would be effective only after the amendment of the section. The learned counsel thus submitted that considering the limited scope under which a review under order XLVII CPC can considered, in the instant case, there are no grounds for allowing the review petition for reviewing the Judgment of this court dated 29.11.2023 in RFA No. 29 of 2023. 17. In rebuttal, Mr. Lalfakawma learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the reading of the whole portion of the prayer of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 15/2022, the plaint had also prayed for the declaration of title and right over the land which is encroached upon by the respondents and thus squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (supra) . He also submitted that the clarification made by the Revenue Department regarding the typographical mistake in section does not need any amendment of the section and submitted that this is being a typographical mistake, can be rectified by issuing an order under section 108 of the Revenue Act, which provides for power to remove difficulties. 18. The learned counsel further submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the Review petition is allowed since the respondents can still adjudicate their case before the learned Civil court. 19. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties. On the perusal of the cited judgment of the Apex court in Perry Kansangra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (supra), Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. (supra) this court finds that the law is well settled that a review application is maintainable on the following grounds : i) Discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, even after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed, or the order was made. Secondly, such a review application shall be maintainable on account of such mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. Secondly, such a review application shall be maintainable on account of such mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. ii) The material error, to exercise the power of review, must be manifest on the face of the order and would result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness iii) The error apparent on the face of the record shall mean an error that is self-evident, and no process of reasoning is required to detect such error. Therefore, when an error is not self-evident and is required to be detected by the process of reasoning, such error cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record. iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. 20. Now, coming to the case in hand, this court finds that in judgment of this court in RFA 29 of 2023, this court had observed as herein under: “that it is also seen that though section 97 (b) provides that the Civil Courts are not prevented from entertaining Suits between private parties for the purpose of establishing any private right, in case it is affected by any entry in any land record. However, in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant had first approached the Revenue Court for settlement of their dispute vide the letter dated 07.01.2021 which was heard and considered and a Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 was made as provided under section 76 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013. Thus, considering the fact that the appellant had initially approached the Revenue Court vide a letter dated 07.01.2021 requesting the Respondent no.4 to take necessary action and to solve their problems, the Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 was made by the Respondent No.3, Director Land Revenue Department as a Revenue Court after hearing both the parties.” This court thus finds that the reason for the above finding is because this court was under the impression that both the parties had admitted that the appellant had first approached the Revenue court. However, it is seen that from the submissions made, that the petitioner had not admitted that the petitioner had approached the revenue court. However, it is seen that from the submissions made, that the petitioner had not admitted that the petitioner had approached the revenue court. Thus, this court finds that its decision was based on a mistaken fact wherein the petitioner had not admitted that she had first approached the revenue court. 21. This court also finds that on the perusal of the plaint, the plaintiff had file the Civil Suit No. 15/2022 for declaring that the plaintiff was the rightful legal owner of the suit land besides declaring the Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 as null and void. The prayer portion of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 15/2022, also includes the prayer for the declaration of title and right over the land besides the prayer for the re-demarcation of and re-survey of the land of the plaintiff by suspending the Settlement order dated 17.01.2022. It is, however, seen that this point was not addressed by this court in RFA 29 of 2023 while discussing the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (supra) 22. This court also finds that during the pendency of the review petition, in terms of this Court’s Order dated 02.05.2025, the Revenue Department, in a letter dated 20.06.2025 had clarified that ‘Section 93’ of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 in section 97 of the Act is a typographical mistake and should be read as “ Section 96 ” which is related to “Exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.” Thus, after the above clarification it becomes evident that even though Section 96 relates to the Exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts however, in view of the subsequent clarification, section 97 provides that nothing in Section 96 shall be held to prevent the Civil Courts from entertaining .. ‘(b) Suits between private parties for the purpose of establishing any private right, in case it is affected by any entry in any land record.’ 23. ‘(b) Suits between private parties for the purpose of establishing any private right, in case it is affected by any entry in any land record.’ 23. This court finds that this clarification was made when this court had called for the clarification vide its Order dated 02.05.2025 and can thus be taken as the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him and is accordingly considered in the instant review and as such found maintainable. 24. At this point this court find it appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the Judgment in Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr.(supra) herein under : “Though the matter was earlier agitated before the Revenue Court for effecting perfect partition, the Petitioners, having failed to get adequate relief, approached the Civil Court by filing suit in question for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. In such premises I do not find any reason how this Section 154 can debar the Petitioners claiming to the title of the land in question from approaching the Civil Court. Section 62 also clearly vests a right upon the person to prefer a suit to the Civil Court for declaration of his right to any property. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and accordingly, I am disinclined to approve the views expressed by the learned Civil Judge in the Impugned orders, I am of the considered view that the Civil Court is the absolute authority to adjudicate a dispute relating to the title and interest over the immovable property." 25. Thus this court finds that since the petitioner had also claimed for the declaration of title and right over the land, besides, the prayer for the re- demarcation of and re-survey of the land of the plaintiff by suspending the Settlement order dated 17.01.2022, which the court had mistakenly not addressed in RFA 29 of 2023, this court finds that such a mistake has lead to the misconception of the applicability of the judgment of a coordinate bench in Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (supra) which is herein found aptly applicable and thus rendering the review maintainable. 26. (supra) which is herein found aptly applicable and thus rendering the review maintainable. 26. This court finds it appropriate to refer to a landmark judgment in the case of BCCI vs. Netaji Cricket reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741 , wherein the Apex court held that an application for review would be maintainable if there exist sufficient reason therefore and what would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case which would also include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. That an application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine of “actus curiae neminem gravabit”. Thus, the power of review is inherited in every court to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. 27. In view of the above cited case and the above, reasonings, this court is of the considered view that sufficient grounds are made out for this court to review its Judgment dated 29.11.2023 in RFA No. 29 of 2023 A/o Civil Suit No. 15 of 2022 on finding the doctrine of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” can be invoked and the Court is not precluded from rectifying an error found due to a mistake/ non consideration of facts of the case and on the subsequent discovery of the typographical mistake in the reading of section 97 of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act,2013. 28. In view of the above, this Court finds it fit to allow the review petition on finding that the Civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain the Civil Suit, not being barred by sections 96, 97 & 89 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, by modifying its earlier decision in RFA No. 29 of 2023 dated 29.11.2023 and hold that the impugned order of the learned trial court in Civil Suit No. 18 of 2022 dated 19.06.2023 is liable to be set aside 29. Thus, the parties are to appear before the learned Trial Court for further necessary steps for the further adjudication in the case. 30. Accordingly, the Review Petition No. 2 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of as above.