Allahabad High Court
Smt. Aparna Sharma And 3 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 29 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33003
Court No. - 7
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 73 of 2025
Applicant :- Smt. Aparna Sharma And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sitapur And 7 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Aslam Khan
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard.
2. Present review application under Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 read with Section 114 Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners/applicants in relation to final judgment and order dated 25.04.2025, passed in Writ-B No.1239 of 2003 (Raj Kumar Vs. D.D.C. & others). The relevant portion of the judgment under review, extracted herein under, would indicate that the same was passed after considering the prayer sought, facts pleaded as also the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners/review applicants. Paragraphs 2 to 9 of the judgment under review are extracted herein under :-
"2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief(s):-
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 in Revision No. 234 Raj Kumar v. Krishna Kumar, 14.5.2003 passed by the Opposite Party No. 2 and 16.10.2002 passed by the Opposite Party No. 3, contained in Annexure No. 1, 5 and 4 respectively of the Writ Petition."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
(i) The petitioner/Raj Kumar and respondent Nos. 4/Krishan Kumar & 5/Sant Kumar, respectively, are the real brothers.
(ii) The dispute in the present case relates to the ancestral property/land of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
(iii) The land of Gata Nos. 38, 186 and 229 situated at Village- Parsehramal, Pargana- Hargaon, Tehsil and District- Sitapur, is the ancestral property of aforesaid parties.
(iv) Indisputedly, all the parties aforesaid are having 1/3 share each over the aforesaid Gatas.
(v) As per the petitioner, a family partition took place prior to initiation of consolidation proceedings and the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were in possession based upon the said settlement as per the Map annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the instant petition. The Map, referred, is extracted hereunder:-
(vi) The Assistant Consolidation Officer concerned (in short "ACO") after considering the claim of the respective parties proposed the chak as indicated in the Map annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the instant petition. This Map is also extracted hereunder:-
(vii) It would apt to indicate here that the Map indicated in the preceding paragraph 3(vi) of this judgment was prepared for the purposes of allotment of chak(s) to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
(viii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, objections were filed by petitioner/Raj Kumar and respondent No. 4/Krishna Kumar registered as Case No. 556 (Raj Kumar vs. Krishna Kumar and others) and Case No. 555 (Krishna Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others), respectively, under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). The respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Hargaon, District- Sitapur (in short "CO"), after due consideration of the facts of the case and chak(s) proposed by ACO, as aforesaid, rejected the objections vide order impugned dated 16.10.2002. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.10.2002 reads as under:-
"mHk;i{kksa dks lquk x;k vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk lkFk LFky fujh{k.k Hkh fd;k x;kA oknh jktdqekj dh vksj ls vius uEcjksa ij [kM+s bu isM+ksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS budk ewY;kadu vafdr fd;k tk pqdk gSA blfy, ,d ckj fu/kkZfjr ewY;kadu esa iqu% la'kks/ku ;k ifjorZu djuk mfpr ugha gksxkA tgka rd l0p0v0 }kjk izLrkfor pdksa dk laca/k gS bl laca/k esa vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd rhuksa Hkkb;ksa ds pd iwjc if'pe yEckbZ esa eq[; ekxZ rd cuk;s x;s gSA pwafd xkVk la[;k 186 o 229 d`".k dqekj] jktdqekj o lUr dqekj iq=x.k lkses'oj nRr ds uke la;qDr :i ls vafdr gSA tgka ,d vksj jktdqekj }kjk eq[; ekxZ iwjk ysrs gq, vius pd dh ekax dh x;h gS ogha nwljh vksj vU; lg[kkrsnkjksa es Hkh eq[; ekxZ rd igqapus ds fy, leku pkSM+kbZ esa pd cuk;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k gSA oknhx.kksa ds IykV lhrkiqj ls y[kheiqj ekxZ ls yxs gq, gksus ds dkj.k [ksrh ds lkFk lkFk vU; O;kolkf;d egRo dh Hkwfe izrhr gksrh gS vkSj ;gh dkj.k gS fd lHkh HkkbZ eq[; ekxZ rd igqapus ds fy, bl fglkc ls pd cuk;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd O;olkf;d egRo okyh Hkwfe Hkh lcds fgLls eas vk tk;A bl laca/k esa d`".k dqekj o lardqekj }kjk vuqikfrd :i ls lM+d rjQ leku fgLls dh ekax dh x;h gSA blds foijhr jktdqekj us lM+d dh rjQ dh lEiw.kZ Hkwfe vius i{k esa ekax dh gSA l0p0v0 us tks pd izLrkfor fd;k gSA mles jktdqekj dks LkM+d dh vksj T;knk pkSM+kbZ esa pd izfn"V fd;k gS tcfd vU; fgLlsnkjksa dks ml pkSM+kbZ esa LkM+d rjQ ugha fn;k x;k gSA igys ls gh lM+d rjQ O;olkf;d egRo dh Hkwfe jktdqekj dks vf/kd izfn"V dh tk pqdh gSA blfy, lM+d Nksj dk lEiw.kZ va'k fn;s tkus laca/kh jktdqekj dh ekax U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vr% lM+d rjQ dk vf/kdka'k Hkkx fn;s tkus laca/kh jktdqekj dh vkifRr U;k;ksfpr u gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rnuqlkj mudh vkifRr [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
blh izdkj d`".k dqekj dh vksj ls Hkh lM+d rjQ pkSM+kbZ esa 1@3 va'k dh ekax ds vuqlkj la'kks/ku fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gksxkA D;ksafd ,slk djus ij pdksa dh vkd`fr;ka fcxM+us ds lkFk lkFk rhljs i{k dks lM+d rjQ dksbZ Hkh va'k izkIr ugha gks ikosxkA vr% d`".k dqekj dh Hkh vkifRr [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ;g fl) gS fd l0p0v0 }kjk i{kksa dks tks pd izLrkfor fd;s x;s gSaA os loZFkk mfpr gS buesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk ifjorZu fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gksxkA vr% nksuksa vkifRrdrkZvksa dh vkifRr;ka [kkfjt djrs gq, l0p0v0 }kjk izLrkfor pd dk ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA rnuqlkj vkns'k gqvk fd&
vkns'k
xzke ijlsgjk eky ijxuk gjxkao ds pdnkj la[;k 238 pd la031 o pd la0 289 ds laca/k esa Jh jktdqekj o d`".k dqekj dh pd vkifRr;ka cyghu gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA l0p0v0 }kjk izLrkfor pdksa dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA oknhx.kksa dks [kkfjt uksfVl vyx ls tkjh gksA ;gh vkns'k i=koyh okn la0 555 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA
i=koyh okn vey cjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA"
(ix) After the order dated 16.10.2002 passed by CO, being aggrieved, three appeals were filed. The petitioner/Raj Kumar filed the Appeal No. 215 (Raj Kumar vs. Krishna Kumar and others), respondent No. 4/Krishna Kumar filed the Appeal No. 214 (Krishna Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others) and respondent No. 5/Sant Kumar filed the Appeal No. 218 (Sant Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others). All the three appeals were rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow Camp, Sitapur (in short "SOC") vide order impugned dated 14.05.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.05.2003 reads as under:-
"eSus i=kofy;ksa ds voyksdu rFkk fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksaZ dks lquus ,oa tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e 1953 ,oa fu;ekoyh esa fofgr izkfo/kkuksa dks ns[kus ds i'pkr ;g ik;k fd fookfnr xkVk la0 229 o 186 mHk; i{kksa ds ewy xkVs gSaA ;g xkVs lhrkiqj ls y[kheiqj tkus okys jktekXkZ ij fLFkr gSA lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us m0iz0] tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e] 1953 dh /kkjk&19 dh mi/kkjk ³ o p esa fofgr fl}karksa dk ikyu djrs gq, pd izfn"V fd;s gSA /kkjk&19 dh mi/kkjk ³ esa ;g izkfo/kku gS fd izR;sd [kkrsnkj dks ;FkklEHko ml LFkku ij pd izfn"V fd;k tk;s tgka mldh tksr dk lcls cM+k Hkkx gksA mi/kkjk p esa ;g izkfo/kkfur fd;k x;k gS fd izR;sd [kkrsnkj dks ;FkklaHko og xkVk izfn"V fd;k tk;s ftlesa mldk flapkbZ dk lk/ku vFkok vU; dksbZ leqUufr fo|eku gksA vkSj lkFk lkFk esa mlds fudV dk og {ks=Qy izfn"V fd;k tk;s tks mlds }kjk ?kzV xkVksa ds leku gksA tgka rd jktdqekj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr uthj dkys cuke Mh0Mh0lh0vk0Mh0&1976] i`"B&355 dk iz'u gS] mDr uthj ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ls lacaf/kr gSA ikfjokfjd le>kSrk] ikfjokfjd fookn vkSj dyg ds fuLrkj.k ds fy, ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh vkilh jtkeUnj ls rS;kj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj le;kuqlkj l{ke U;k;ky; esa l{ke /kkjk ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;k tkrk gSA ;fn i{kksa ds e/; lqygukek i{kksa dh jtkeanh ls Fkk rks mldks /kkjk&9 ds izdk'ku ds mijkar i{kksa dks tksr pdcanh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&9&d 2 ds vUrxZr izLrqr djuk pkfg, FkkA vkSj mls ml fof'k"V volj ij izLrqr u djus dk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd i{kksa esa dksbZ ikfjokfjd le>kSrk i{kksa dh jtkeanh ls ugha FkkA ikfjokfjd le>kSrk i{kksa dh jtkeanh ls gksrk gS] bl izdj.k esa pd ds laca/k esa izR;sd i{k }kjk ,d ,d vihy nk;j dh x;h gS ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd i{kksa esa dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gSA tgak rd jktdqekj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr uthj jktLo yk VkbEl] 1998] i`"B&14 dk laca/k gS] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d foospu esa ;g ekuk gS fd ewy [kkrsnkj dk fu"d"kZ nLrkosth lk{;] tSls tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&2&d ds vk/kkj ij fudkyuk pkfg;sA tgka rd tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&2&d dk iz'u gS] i=koyh esa tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&2&d dh izfrfyfi nkf[ky gS ftlds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd i{k pdcUnh ls iwoZ nksuksa xkVksa ij fHkUu fHkUu txgksa ij tksr cks jgs FksA ;fn bls eku fy;k tk;s rks izR;sd pdnkj dks izR;sd xkVs ij pd izfn"V djuk gksxkA ;fn ,slk gksrk gS rks pdcUnh izfdz;k dk m|s'; gh lekIr gks tkrk gS D;ksafd tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ,d dY;k.kdkjh vf/kfu;e gS vkSj vc rd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk nh x;h O;oLFkkvksa ls ;g lqfLFkj gks pqdk gS fd fdlh dY;k.kdkjh vf/kfu;e] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjkvksa ,oa mlds vUrxZr cuh fu;ekoyh dk foospu djrs gq, vf/kfu;e ds y{;] tu dY;k.kdkjh vf/kfu;e dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mnkj n`f"Vdks.k viukuk pkfg, tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vkj0ih0'kqDyk cuke Mh0Mh0lh0]vkj0Mh0] 1994 esa viuk er O;Dr fd;k gSA tgka rd jktLo yk VkbEl 1998] i`"B 332 dh uthj dk iz'u gS] blesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; us ;g ekuk gS fd m0iz0] tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e] 1953 dh /kkjk&19 ds varxZr pd vkcaVu ds le; lcls cM+s Hkw[k.M vkSj flapkbZ ds lk/ku ls ;qDr Hkw[k.M ij pd izfn"V djuk pkfg,A ;fn ,slk ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks bldk i;kZIr dkj.k fn;k tkuk pkfg,A bl laca/k esa vfHkys[kksa ,oa pd Hkwfp= ds voyksdu ls fLFkfr LIk"V gks tkrh gS fd i{kksa dks mudh tksr ds cM+s HkwHkkx ij flapkbZ ds lk/ku dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&19 esa fofgr izkfo/kkuksa ds rgr pd izfn"V fd;s x;s gSaA bl uthj esa fofgr U;kf;d foospu dk lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk iw.kZr;k ikyu fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g uthj Lor% vuqikyu gksus ij fu"izHkkoh gks tkrh gSA
lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk pd izfn"V djrs le; mRrj izns'k tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e] 1953 dh /kkjk&19 esa fofgr izkfo/kkuksa] rkjkpUn rFkk vU; cuke Mh0Mh0lh0 rFkk vU;] 1994] vkj0Mh0] i`"B&286] txUukFk cuke la;qDr Mh0Mh0lh0 rFkk vU;] 1994 vkj0Mh0] i`"B&284 rFkk bUnziky ,oa vU; cuke Mh0Mh0lh0 rFkk vU; vkj0Mh0]1993] i`"B&44 ij ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vo/kkfjr U;kf;d foospu dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, pd izfn"V fd;s gSa lkFk gh lkFk lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ;g ckr Hkh /;ku esa j[kh x;h gS fd fookfnr xkVs ftu ij pd izfn"V fd;s x;s gSa] og lhrkiqj ls y[kheiqj tkus okys jktekxZ ls lVs gksus ds dkj.k izR;sd pdnkj dks lM+d ls lVs gq, pd izfn"V fd;s x;s gSaA esjs fopkj ls pdksa ds izfn"Vhdj.k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vfu;ferrk ,oa voS/kkfudrk ifjyf{kr ugha gksrh gS vkSj pd fofgr izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr lgh izfn"V fd;s x;s gSA vr% vihy cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA
vkns'k
vr% vkns'k gqvk gS fd mijksDrkuqlkj rhuksa vihysa cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA ;gh vkns'k rhuksa vihyksa ij ykxw gksxkA i=kofy;ka okn veynjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksaA"
(x) Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2003 passed by SOC, three revisions were filed. The petitioner/Raj Kumar filed the Revision No. 234 (Raj Kumar vs. Krishna Kumar and others), respondent No. 5/Sant Kumar filed the Revision No. 244 (Sant Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others) and respondent No. 4/Krishna Kumar filed the Revision No. 245 (Krishna Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others), which were also dismissed by the Revisional Authority/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur (in short "DDC") vide order impugned dated 06.09.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 06.09.2003 reads as under:-
"mHk;i{kksa dks lquus ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k ls ;g rF; Li"V gS fd rhuksa gh fuxjkuh drkZx.k vkil esa lxs HkkbZ ,oa lg&[kkrsnkj gSaA mHk;i{kksa dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd mudk ikfjokfjd caVokjk Fkk ftlds laca/k esa vihy U;k;ky; us ;g ekuk gS fd ikfjokfjd caVokjk dks ewfrZ:i iznku djus ds fy;s mlds vk/kkj ij foHkktu djkuk pkfg;s Fkk fdUrq jktdqekj vFkok vU; fuxjkuhdrkZ us caVokjk ikfjokfjd vk/kkj ij u djkdj 1@3 Hkkx izR;sd ds vk/kkj ij djk;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij i{k ckf/kr gSA pwafd xkVk la0 186 o 229 esa mHk; i{k lg&[kkrsnkj gSa vr% izR;sd O;fDr dk nksuksa xkVksa esa 1@3 va'k gh ekuk tk;sxk blesa ikfjokfjd caVokjs dk dksbZ izHklo ugha gksxkA bl fcUnq ij eSa vihy U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls lger gwaA fuxjkuhdrkZ jktdqekj dh vksj ls tks O;oLFkk esjs le{k izLrqr dh x;h gS] mlds ifjizs{; esa eSuas yksr pdcUnh vkdkj i= 2&d dk ijh{k.k fd;kA bl izi= eas xkVk la0 186]229 dkfot gksus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy;s bl O;oLFkk dk dksbZ ykHk fuxjkuhdrkZ jktdqekj dks ugha fn;k tk ldrkA rhuksa gh fuxjkuhdrkZ x.k ds pd iwjo ifPNe lM+d ls feykdj cuk;s x;s gSa ftlls lHkh ij vPNh o [kjkc Hkwfe fey jgh gS vkSj pd vkoUVu esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha cjrh x;h gS rFkk /kkjk 19 ds izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu fd;k x;k gSA tgka rd fuxjkuhdrkZ d`".k dqekj o lUr dqekj dh bl ekax dh iz'u gS fd rhuksa pdknkjksa dks lM+d fdukjs leku pkSM+kbZ dh tkosA ;g blfy;s lEHko ugha gS fd lM+d frjNh gS vxj lM+d ij leku pkSM+kbZ djus ls lHkh pd VsM+s gks tkosaxsA blfy;s bu nksuksa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dh ekax Lohdkj fd;k tkuk Hkh lEHko ugha gSA
mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esjs fopkj ls rhuksa fuxjkuhdrkZ x.k ds pdksa dk vkoUVu mfpr gS rFkk lHkh dks leku Lrj vkSj iSnkokj dh Hkwfe vlofUVr dh x;h gSA bl vk/kkj ij rhuksa fuxjkfu;ka cyghu gS rFkk fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSaA
vkns'k
vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij rhuksa fuxjkfu;ka cyghu gS rFkk fujLr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okn veynjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA ;gh vkns'k i=koyh la0 244 o 245 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA"
4. From the aforesaid including the impugned order(s) dated 16.10.2002, 14.05.2003 and 06.09.2003, it is apparent that the allotment of chak(s) to real brothers i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 by ACO has been affirmed by all the authorities who adjudicated the claim of the parties. Further, the Map extracted in preceding paragraph No. 3(vi) of this judgment indicates that all the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are having access on the highway as the chak(s) of these parties are on highway/adjacent to highway. This Map also indicates that the petitioner is having more than the area provided to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 adjacent to highway. Further, from a conjoint perusal of the Map extracted in preceding paragraphs 3(v) and 3(vi) of this judgment, it is evident that all the parties are getting their bore well/tube well.
5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed before this Court.
6. Assailing the impugned orders dated 16.10.2002, 14.05.2003 and 06.09.2003, Sri Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same have been passed without considering the genuine grievance of the petitioner as also that the same are against the principles embodied under Section 19 and Section 52 of the Act of 1953.
7. He further stated that the chaks ought to have been allotted in terms of family settlement arrived at between the parties and in not allotting the chaks to all the parties, the authorities under the Act of 1953 namely CO, SOC and DDC committed error of law and fact both.
8. He also stated that all the parties were aggrieved by the allotment of chaks as proposed by ACO and therefore, all the parties filed the objections, appeals and revisions and the authorities concerned failed to consider the grievance of the parties, who are real brothers and claiming their rights as per the settlement arrived at amongst them.
9. Learned counsel for the side opposite opposed the instant petition. It is stated that chaks have been allotted to all the parties strictly in terms of Section 19 read with Section 52 of the Act of 1953 as well as the law settled in this regard in various pronouncements of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also stated that there was no family settlement between the parties. It is also stated that proposal of ACO was opposed only with regard to share provided on highway."
3. After considering the aforesaid as also the law on the issue related to allotment of Chak (s) this court in the judgment dated 25.04.2025, under review, concluded as under :-
"22. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the allotment of chak to the petitioner is justified and proper. Hence, no interference in the orders impugned is required by this Court in exercise of power vested under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. It is for the following fact(s)/reason(s):-
(i) From the impugned orders dated 16.10.2002, 14.05.2003 and 06.09.2003, it is apparent that the allotment of chak to real brothers i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 by ACO has been affirmed by all the authorities, who adjudicated the claim of the petitioner. Thus, concurrent findings on facts need not be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) From the Map extracted in preceding paragraph No. 3(vi) of this judgment and also the impugned orders, it is evident that all the parties are having access on the highway as chak(s) to the real brothers, who are petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5, have been provided on highway/adjacent to highway.
(iii) From the Map and also the impugned orders, it is evident that the petitioner is having more than the area provided to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 adjacent to highway, which is not in dispute.
(iv) From a conjoint perusal of the Map extracted in preceding paragraphs 3(v) and 3(vi) of this judgment and also the impugned orders, it is evident that all the parties are getting their bore well/tube well."
4. The grounds for seeking review of judgment and order dated 25.04.2025 taken in the present application, are extracted hereinunder:-
"(a) Because Raj Kumar, now deceased, sole petitioner, predecessor in interest of the review petitioners/applicants having been held to be the owner of the trees, tubewell and pucca room and his name was also ordered to be recorded, is legally entitled to cut and remove those threes, which had gone in the chak of the opposite party no.4, thereby the judgment deserves to be reviewed.
(b) Because in pursuance to the family partition/settlement amongst Raj Kumar, now deceased, opposite party no.4 and Sant Ram, now deceased, opposite party no.5, were in peaceful cultivatory possession and made improvements by installing tubewell, constructing pucca room and planted fruit bearing and timber trees. In pursuance to the orders passed by the consolidation authorities, whereby respective holding was altered, the trees planted by Raj Kumar over his portion had gone in chak no.31 of the opposite party no.4. Likewise, the trees planted by the opposite party no.4. which came in the share of Raj Kumar, the opposite party no.4 made an application before the opposite party no.2, which was allowed, he cut away and removed the trees. The applicants are also legally entitled to cut and remove those trees, which were standing in his portion and given in the chak of Krishna Kumar, opposite party no.4, hence the judgment passed may be reviewed.
(c) Because under the Act, tenue holders are entitled to get the valuation of the trees and other improvements standing in the original holding and no consideration has been paid by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 in that respect, hence the order passed deserves to be review."
5. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below :-
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. 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;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.25,.
20.2. 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.
(vi) 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 negatived."
6. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.
7. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, observed as under:-
9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result......... A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace."
10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very pivotal observations:--
"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 of 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 a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.
14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), this Court reiterated the law and held that:--
"15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions."
15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:--
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
8. In the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius)."
9. Upon due consideration of the grounds taken in the instant review application as also the law related to review petition, according to which the review is by no means an appeal in disguise and the scope of review is limited as also the judgment dated 25.04.2025, under review, this Court finds no force in the present review application for the reasons that while passing the judgment dated 25.04.2025 this Court considered the relevant law on the issue pertaining to the allotment of chak(s) as also the facts of the case pleaded and submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner/applicant. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.5.2025
ML/-
