Adil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8936 MP

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                     &
                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                               ON THE 16 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                            REVIEW PETITION No. 269 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ADIL S/O MOHAMMAD ARIF PALWALA, AGED 45
                          YE A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 86/3, RANIPURA,
                          INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                          (NONE PRESENT FOR THE PETITIONER)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTOR
                                INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    TEHSILDAR      TEHSILDAR INDORE   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    M/S SHIV ENTERPRISES THROUGH PARTNER
                                ABHAY    S/O  CHAGANLAL    JAIN SHEHNAI
                                RESIDENCY KANADIYA ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    M/S SHIV ENTERPRISES DWARA BHAGIDAR
                                SHARAD S/O SHANTIPRIY DOSI 46, GULMOHAR
                                COLONY INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE COLLECTOR
                                OFFICE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    SANYUKT SANCHALAK (VITT) BHUABHILEKH
                                AVAM   BANDOBAST GWALIOR    (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          7.    SANJAY TRIVEDI S/O SHYAMSUNDER TRIVEDI 56,
                                PIPALCHOWK KHAJRANA INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/23/2023
6:54:09 PM
                                                              2
                          8.    SMT.    MANJUDEVI     W/O    RAJKUMAR
                                KHANDELWAL 9/2, MG ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          ( SHRI ANIKET NAIK, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT/STATE)
                          .

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
                          ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.10279/2021 [Adil Palwala Vs. The State of M.P. & Others], whereby the Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner had filed the petition challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities for restoring the possession of Government land from the clutches of the private respondents herein.

3. The State submitted that the relief which was sought had already been redressed. The land in question bearing survey no(s) 1405 and 1407 was found to be private land belonging to Shri Kanhaiyalal since 1931. Patwari illegally recorded the name of Laxminarayan Mandir. Thereafter successor of Late Kanhaiyalal Trivedi i.e. Shyamsundar Trivedi applied for correction in the revenue record. Tehsildar after making detailed inquiry corrected the revenue records recording the name of Shyamsundar Trivedi. The Collector thereafter reopened the matter and the order passed therein was challenged before the Board of Revenue. The order of Board of Revenue set aside the order of Collector which was subsequently challenged before this Court in writ petition which was dismissed holding that no illegality was found in the order passed by the Tehsildar and the Board of Revenue. On request of Government, even the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 6/23/2023 6:54:09 PM

Lokayukt Organization has also made investigation in which private respondents were given clean chit. On perusal of the original orders, it revealed that the Tehsildar as well as Board of Revenue have given clean chit to the respondents and have arrived at a conclusion that the land in question had always been a private land and petition has been filed in the shape of public interest litigation though petitioner has not disclosed as to how he is doing the work of public interest and social welfare. Several cases have also been registered against the petitioner in which proceedings of externment have been initiated. Accordingly, the Division Bench declined to entertain the petition and dismissed the same.

4. Now, review of the aforesaid order has been sought inter alia on the ground that petitioner came with clean hands in the interest of public at large and by no stretch of imagination, there was any ill motive behind filing the writ petition. In fact, respondent no.3 and 4 are bhoo-mafia and have suppressed their own criminal antecedents and have misled this Court. Order Annexure P- 11 has not been taken into account while passing the impugned order. Even, the khasra no mentioned in Annexure P-12 is different from original khasra number and by interpolating the khasra numbers, private respondents have illegally obtained the possession of land which is a government land.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6 . In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for

successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs. Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 6/23/2023 6:54:09 PM

merely because it is erroneous. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."

7. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned.

8. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

                               (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                      (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                        JUDGE                                      JUDGE
                          sh




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/23/2023
6:54:09 PM