Allahabad High Court
Birsa Munda Foundation And ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved on 17.03.2023
Delivered on 27.03.2023
In Chamber
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 411 of 2022
IN
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1690 of 2021
Applicant :- Birsa Munda Foundation And Research Institute
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Chandani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
In Re: C.M. Delay Condonation application No.411 of 2022
Heard Sri Udai Chandani, leaned Counsel for the applicant.
The instant application dated 21.08.2022 under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act has been filed to condone the delay in filing the review application against the order dated 22.10.2021.
There is delay of 277 days in filing the review application as per report of stamp reporter.
In view of averment made in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant delay condonation application, delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned.
The delay condonation application is accordingly, allowed.
In Re: C.M. Review Application No.411 of 2022
Heard Sri Udai Chandai learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
The instant review application has been filed against the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1690 of 2021 Birsa Munda foundation and Research Institute versus State of U.P. and 4 others on the ground mentioned as "ground No.A" to "ground No.O" in the memo of the Review petition.
Learned Counsel for the applicant pressed all the grounds but he specifically pressed "ground No.O" which is as under:-
"Ground No.O"
"Because, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could not indicate the Khataunies entries of the name of landless persons and the lease deed for mining purpose, but the said finding is against the material evidence on record as from the bare perusal of Annexure o.2 page 42 onwards which consists of Arazi No. allotted in favour of the landless class do tally with the lease deeds executed by the State Government to the mining firms and in this regard the corresponding entries is reproduced herein below:-
(a) Page No.42 entries do tally with the lease deed at page No.110
(b) Page No.43 entries to tally with the lease deed at page No.203
(c) Page No.49 entries do ally with the lease at page No.136
(d) Page No.50 entries do tally with the lease deed at page No.87 "
Learned counsel for the applicant placed the Khatauni annexed as annexure No.2 to the Writ Petition wherein the particular of the plot number and area is mentioned as well as the mining lease deed annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition wherein only plot number has been mentioned but area of the plot has not been mentioned. On the basis of aforementioned material on record, learned Counsel for applicant submitted that finding recorded by this Court is against the material evidence on record. It is material to mention that area of plot has not been mentioned in the lease deed as mentioned in the khatauni as such the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived.
This Court while dismissing the writ petition on merit considered each and every aspect of the case.
So far as scope of review applicant is concerned, the Apex Court in the case reported in J.T. 1997 (8) SC 480 Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others has held that an error apparent on the face of the record can be considered in review. Paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the judgment rendered in Parison Devi (Supra) are relevant which are as under:
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (1965 (5) SCR 174 at 186) this Court opined:
"What, however, we are not concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occation that Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinct which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent." A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an errneous decision is reheard corrected. but lies only for patent error."
(Emphasis ours)
8. Again, in Smt. Meera Bhanjia Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995 (1) SCC 170) while quoting with approval a passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Sharma & Ors. (1979 (4) SCC 389), this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
It is also material that this Court while dismissing he writ petition vide order dated 22.10.2021 imposed cost of Rs. 15,000/- on the petitioner trust which was to be deposited in the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Service Authority High Court, Allahabad within a period of one month but no averment has been made by applicant/petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of review application dated 21.08.2022 regarding deposit which is non compliance of the order of this Court. Applicant/petitioner is given one more opportunity to deposit the aforementioned amount within period of four weeks from today otherwise the amount shall be recovered from the applicant/petitioner in accordance with law.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio of law laid down in Parison Devi (Supra) no interference is required in the matter. Review application is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 27.3.2023
PS*
