Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Asha Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
REVIEW PETITION No.684 of 2023
ASHA YAYDAV
Vs
STATE OFMADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
APPERANCE
(SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCTE FOR THE PETITIONER)
(SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
THE STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 19/09/2023
Delivered on : 06/08/2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The instant review petition is filed seeking review of the order
dated 14.06.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3163 of 2013
whereby while dismissing the petition holding it be not maintainable,
the order passed by the Board of Revenue was affirmed.
2. Assailing the aforesaid order, a Writ Appeal No.879 of 2023 was
filed before the Division Bench of this Court which was disposed of
with a permission to the petitioner herein to seek review of the order
under challenge, as the grounds which were raised in the writ appeal
were touching the factual matrix, hence, the present review petition has
been filed.
3. The first error which has been alleged to be apparent on the face
of record pertains to last paragraph of page 14 of the order under review
wherein the argument as advanced on behalf of the respondent No.4 had
been narrated which is as under:
"It was further argued that against the order of
Commissioner since the petitioner has not preferred any
revision before the Board of Revenue, the learned
Additional Commissioner had directed to mutate the
name of the State in the revenue records had become
final, so far as the present petitioners are concerned now
the present petition is not maintainable at the hands of the
petitioners since the rights had already been finalized by
the order of Additional Commissioner.
4. From bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it would be evident
that they were just the arguments as advanced on behalf of Respondent
No.4 and it was not the opinion of the Court and whether the said
argument was de-hors the record or was factually incorrect is of no
concern so far as the review of the present order is concerned. The
finding in that regard was given at page 34 of the order under review
wherein this Court has observed as under:
"It is pertinent to mention here that the order passed
by Additional Commissioner dated 06/11/2012 was never
challenged by the Petitioners in the higher forum. The
said order was challenged by Respondent No.4 before the
Board of Revenue, wherein the impugned order had been
passed and as such once the Petitioners had accepted the
order, whereby their rights were directed to be
extinguished and they had not challenged the same, now
in Writ Petition challenging rights of Respondent No.4,
according to this Court is not permissible."
5. In the aforesaid regard, it has been contended by the petitioner
that apart from the revision No.3886-PBR/2012 preferred Gopal Goyal,
revision No.4044-PBR/2012 was preferred by the legal representatives
of the deceased Ram Gopal and the same should be treated to be
preferred by the present petitioners because the petitioners have
purchased the property from Ram Gopal, cannot be accepted as in the
said revision, the petitioners herein were arrayed as the respondents and
not as the petitioners therein and in the body of the petition memo,
averments only were made with regard to the fact of execution of sale-
deed and in absence of it being declared null and void by the competent
Civil Court and thus, it was contended that the Additional
Commissioner had no right to direct the authorities to mutate the name
of respondent No.4.
6. The Additional Commissioner, while passing the impugned order
dated 06.11.2012 which was under challenge before the Board of
Revenue at the behest of seller of the present petitioners, had
specifically observed that the sale-deed executed in favour of Shobha
Ram by Mahant Manohar since was without any right, therefore, it was
void ab-initio and therefore, by way of further sale deeds, no right can
be accrued to the purchasers. The aforesaid finding was against the
present petitioners as they had alleged that they have purchased the land
from Shobharam and when this finding was directly affecting their
rights, they should have challenged the said order, but they chose to
keep a blissful silence and it was only the seller who had challenged the
said order before the Board of Revenue in revision which was
dismissed; hence, so far as the order passed by the Commissioner
against the present petitioners became final and now, at this juncture,
the petitioners could not agitate the order of Board of Revenue alleging
to have stepped into the shoes of the petitioners therein. On this count,
the contention as raised with regard to said error has no force.
7. The second error which has been pointed out also relates to the
arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No.4 which reads as
under:
Ramgopal was never the owner of the property, therefore,
Bhoomi Swami rights have never accrued to him rather
grandfather of respondent No 4 who was the owner of the
property who had acquired the rights of Bhoomi Swami and
after his death in the year 1970 the property devolved on
father of present Respondnet No. 4 Laxman Das and after
his death as a legal successor, the present respondent No. 4
acquired the rights of Bhumi Swami and in alternative, it
has been argued that on the basis of legal heirship, he had
acquired the rights of Bhumi Swami and the Will was
produced only for the sake of proving himself to be the
grandson of Prahlad Das and therefore the Will had no
effect and even in the absence of the Will the rights of
respondent No. 4 cannot be taken away.
In that regard, the petitioner has tried to raise the grounds in
alternate which were already before the Court at the time of final
hearing of the matter which cannot be a ground for review.
8. Lastly, while referring to last paragraph of page 16 of the order
under review which is as under:-
"Now the question is whether the disciple of
Mahant Manohar Das, i.e. Ramadas had acquired any
rights in the property or Prahalad Das, whose name is
mentioned in the revenue records as Up-Krashak, had
acquired the rights of an Occupancy Tenant and later on
with the efflux of time, as per the provisions of section
190 of MP Land revenue Code he had acquired the rights
of Bhumiswami."
it has been contended that no Bhumiswami rights can be accorded
by any of the Revenue Court or even the High Court and jurisdiction for
the same lay with the Civil Court only, thus, the discussion on the
aforesaid issue was irrelevant and the finding in that regard was
unwarranted, therefore, the order under challenge is required to be
recalled/reviewed and the matter deserves to be re-heard.
9. While discussing the aforesaid issue, this Court has only gone into
the aspect whether the disciple of Mahant Manohar Das, i.e. Ramadas
had acquired any rights in the property or Prahalad Das had acquired the
rights and has not gone the issue as to whether the rights have been
accrued as per the provisions of Section 190 of the Code.
10. In the last paragraph of page No.34, the issue has been dealt with
and on the basis of name of Prahalad Das appearing in the revenue
records in the column of Bhumiswami, Occupancy tenant, UpKrashak,
pattedar consistently with the names of the present petitioners, whose
names subsequently appeared in the revenue records after they had
purchased it, it was held that the finding of Board of Revenue was
justified. No right of Bhumiswami as such has been conferred upon
Prahalad Das by this Court or by any of the revenue Courts.
11. Apart from this, the question as to whether Prahalad Das had per-
existing rights in the property or had accrued in his favour as per
Section 190 of the Code was not the subject matter.
12. Though the Court has discussed the grounds which have been
raised by the petitioner but none of the grounds were such which could
have attracted the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which could
entail this Court to recall or review the order impugned. It would be
profitable to quote Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:-
''1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the error apparent on
the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order
made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to
the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant
and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can
present to the Appellate Court the case on which he
applied for the review.
[Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of
law on which the judgment of the Court is based has
been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of
a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground
for the review of such judgment.]"
13. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC specifically lays down that whenever there
is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, even after
the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time or when the error
is apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review. No new discovery or important matter or
evidence has been brought on record which even after due diligence
was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by them at the
time when the order was passed, no mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record could be pointed out and also no any other sufficient
reason was brought before this Court which would compel this Court to
review the order impugned.
14. It is also not the case that there was total misreading of the
admitted material on record, rather, the order is based upon the actual
facts, therefore, according to this Court, the grounds raised manifestly
don't come within the purview of connotation of expression "discovery
of new facts" or "error apparent on the face of record" or such it may be
constituted to be founded on any other sufficient reason, therefore, the
present review petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be
dismissed.
15. In Board of Control of Cricket India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club
(AIR 2005 SC 592), it is observed that "the words "sufficient reason"
occurring in rule 1 is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or
law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be
necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem
gravabit'".
16. Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.,
(AIR 2008 (Gau) 161), it is observed that the review is not an appeal in
disguise. The scope of review as well as the appeal is completely
different. While the review petition is limited the appellate jurisdiction
is wide. In Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors.
reported in (2013 AIR SCW 1316), the Apex Court held that scope of
review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of
fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that
review of an order is permissible only if some mistake or error is
apparent on the face of the record, which has to be decided on the facts
of each and every case. Further held that an erroneous decision, by
itself, does not warrant review of each decision.
17. The scope of review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature, is
circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code which provides that a review
of an order is permissible upon a discovery of new and important matter
of evidence. But in the present case no new and important matter has
been brought before the Court by the petitioners. It is also well settled
that only errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed
and such errors must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments
are necessary to pin point those errors. [See Abhijit Tea Company Pvt.
Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1995 Cal 316)].
18. In the light of above citations, it is well settled that the scope of
review is very limited and there seems to be no error apparent on the
face of record in the impugned order passed by this Court.
19. Consequently, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and taking into
consideration the settled principal of law, no case for reviewing the
order dated dated 14.06.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.3163 of 2013 is made out. Hence, this review petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
PAWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b
KUMAR
4a49f265f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E261
64BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2024.08.08 18:06:55 +05'30'
