Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Deceased Manaji Punjaji ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1880/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1880 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 302 of 2013
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED MANAJI PUNJAJI THAKOR @ RATHOD &
ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIKRAM J THAKOR(2221) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4
G H VIRK(7392) for the Opponent(s) No.3
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, LD.ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Opponent(s) No. 1,2, 5,6
MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK(11607) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,26,3
MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Opponent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed seeking recall and review of the
oral judgement dated 03.07.2025, in Special Civil Application
No.302 of 2013.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vikram Thakor for the
applicants and learned Government Pleader Mr.G.H.Virk for
respondent No.3, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Sahil Trivedi for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 and learned
advocate Ms.Sonal Vyas for respondent No.4.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Vikram Thakor for the applicants
submitted that this application is filed seeking recall of oral
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1880/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
judgement dated 03.07.2025 because the respondents - Town
Planning Authority may be further directed to (1) hand over
vacant and peaceful possession of entire final plot no.33/1 and
33/2 including part of the final plot allotted in part of
adjoining Survey No.39 within stipulated time, (2) allot two
separate final plots in lieu of land bearing Survey No.33/1
(restricted tenure land) and survey No.33/2 (old tenure land),
(3) allot square and rectangle shape final plots suitable for
building construction and (4) to direct the revenue authority
more particularly respondent Nos.5 & 6 to take decision on
applicants' representation dated 16.01.2025. Learned advocate
submitted that since these aspects have not been considered in
the oral judgement dated 03.07.2025, kindly modify the oral
judgement dated 03.07.2025 or else quash and set aside the
Town Planning Scheme- 241 (Nana Chiloda).
Learned advocate for the applicants' invited attention to
the representation dated 16.01.2025 to submit that all these
objections were raised in the representation. Despite that the
same were not considered and not forming part of the oral
judgement and therefore, oral judgement dated 03.07.2025,
deserves to be recalled and reviewed.
4. On other hand, learned Government Pleader Mr.G.H.Virk
for respondent No.3 invited attention of this court to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1880/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
prayers made in the original petition and submitted that the
petition challenges Town Planning Scheme-241 (Nana Chiloda)
and contentions raised therein. All the contentions have been
considered and dealt with by this court in oral judgement
dated 03.07.2025. By inviting attention to the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.526 of
2023 in Civil Appeal No.6990 of 2014, Learned Government
Pleader Mr. Virk submitted that the scope of review being
limited and in this case in absence of error apparent on
record, this application deserves rejection.
5. Considered the submissions. It is noticed that this
application is filed with similar prayers as made in the original
petition. In relation to the prayer of this application of land
bearing Survey No.33/1 (restricted tenure land) and survey
No.33/2 (old tenure land), it is noticed that the same prayer
was part of the original petition and that was one of the
grounds for challenging Town Planning Scheme-241 (Nana
Chiloda).
6. Similar is the case with the prayer of allotment of
Final Plot and it was grievance of the applicant- original
petitioners that the allotment done is erroneous on account of
incorrect measurement being considered. The allotment done
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1880/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
pursuant to Town Planning Scheme -241(Nana Chiloda) was
not under challenge.
7. Further, non-grant of separate demarcated plots was one
of the grounds for challenging the Town Planning Scheme
241(Nana-Chiloda). Thus, in the opinion of this Court all
contentions of this application are considered in oral judgement
dated 03.07.2025 because the Town Planning Scheme-241
(Nana Chiloda) was under challenge.
8. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering
the scope of review in Review Petition (Civil) No.526 of 2023
in Civil Appeal No.6990 of 2014, has held as under:
"12. At the outset, we must reiterate that the scope of review by
this Court is very limited. The scope of review jurisdiction has
been delineated by this Court in a catena of judgments. We would
not like to burden the present judgment by reproducing all those
judgments. This Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati
and others (supra), after surveying the earlier law laid down by
this Court has summarized the principles thus:
"Summary of the principles
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1880/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" interpreted in
Chhajju have been Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144: (1922)
16 LW 37: AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Rev. Mar Poulose Catholicos v. Most
Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526: (1955) 1 SCR 520] 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. [(2013) 8 SCC 337: JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
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 erroneous in disguise
whereby an decision is reheard 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."
13. It is thus settled that the review would be permissible only if
there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or
any other sufficient reason is made out. We are also equally aware
of the fact that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case. The review of the judgment would be
permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1880/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
We are also aware that such an error should be an error apparent
on the face of the record and should not be an error which has to
be fished out and searched.
14. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we will have to
examine the present case.
IV. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH
OF THE HIGH COURT IN JAI SINGH II"
9. In one more decision in the case of S. Murali Sundaram
V/s. Jothibai Kannan and others reported in 2013 SC 515, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising
jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of
Code of Civil Procedure, Review Court does not sit in appeal
over its own order. Rehearing of the matter is impermissible in
law. Review is not appeal in disguise. Re-writing of judgement
is unjustified. (Para 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3).
10. In view of foregoing reasons, the present application is
devoid of any merits and the same is rejected.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
DIPTI PATEL...
