Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Kumar Gaurav on 11 April, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.115 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4501 of 2021
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada,
Bihar.
2. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Rajauli, District- Nawada, Bihar,
3. The Circle Officer, Akbarpur, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Kumar Gaurav Son of Late Jagdish Prasad @ Jagdish Prasad Gupta Resident
of Gaya Road, Bhadauni, Gondapur, P.S. and District- Nawada, Pin- 805110.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K Shahi, Advocate General
Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5
For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V JUDGMENT
Date : 11-04-2025
Heard Mr. P. K Shahi, learned Advocate General
assisted by Md. Nadim Seraj, learned G.P-5 for the review
applicants/petitioners and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey assisted by
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner/respondent.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant application
praying for review of the order dated 28.6.2023 passed in CWJC
no.4501 of 2021 whereby this Court was pleased to allow the
writ application in the following terms :-
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
2/19
"14. In the opinion of the Court, the
consequence of the proceedings with respect to
mutation is that the order of mutation passed by the
Circle Officer in favour of the petitioner in Mutation
Case no.555-R-27/2018-19, though was set aside by
the D.C.L.R., Rajauli in Mutation Appeal no.28/2019-
20, however, on the orders of the D.C.L.R. being set
aside (impliedly on account of remand) by the
Additional Collector in Mutation Revision Case
no.21/2020-21, the order of mutation in favour of the
petitioner stands today.
15. In view of the above, on learned
counsel for the respondents being confronted with the
facts that when there is a judgment and decree in
favour of the vendors of the petitioner in the title suit
filed by them as also there is an order of mutation in
the petitioner's favour then under what circumstance,
could the land in question be put in the list of land
being described as 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' and
'Anabad Sarvsadharan' and under what circumstances
rent receipts were not being issued in favour of the
petitioner, there was no response forthcoming.
16. This Court holds that in view of the
judgment and decree dated 20.8.2018 and 1.9.2018
passed in Title Suit no.202 of 2013 by the learned Sub
Judge VII, Nawada with respect to the land in question
and wherein the State of Bihar through the Collector as
also the Circle Officer were parties, the land of the
petitioner could not be put in the list as enclosed with
the letter dated 19.1.2016 of the Circle Officer,
Akbarpur of the land described as Anabad Bihar
Sarkar' and 'Anabad Sarvsadharan' and the same is
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
3/19
set aside to the extent that the petitioner's land is
concerned.
17. This Court also holds that the land
in question having been mutated in favour of the
petitioner by an order passed by the Circle Officer in
Mutation Case no.555-R-27/2018-19 and the order
setting aside the same passed by the D.C.L.R. having
itself been quashed by the Additional Collector, the
order of mutation in favour of the petitioner remains
and in such circumstances, the respondent authorities,
on payment of rent by the petitioner cannot refuse to
grant rent receipt in the petitioner's name.
18. It is directed that on payment of rent, the
Circle Officer, Akbarpur, District Nawada (respondent
no.8) shall issue rent receipt to the petitioner.
19. The writ application stands allowed with
the above observations and directions."
3. The dispute in the writ application from which the
instant case arises relates to land measuring an area of 1.22
acres, 1.01 acres and 2.20 acres under different Khata and plot
numbers in Mauza Badail, Circle Akbarpur in the District of
Nawada.
4. The land in question was purchased by the
respondent for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed
dated 24.7.2018 from Krishna Prasad Bhojpuri and Vishwanath
Prasad Bhojpuri. As in the revisional survey khatiyan with
respect to the land in question, the name Bihar Sarkar was
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
4/19
entered and illegal possession of one Triveni Prasad Singh was
shown in the remark column, the vendors of the respondent filed
Title Suit no.202 of 2013 in the Court of learned Sub Judge VII,
Nawada for a declaration that the revisional survey entry in the
khatiyan with respect to the land in question was wrong and not
binding upon them as also for confirmation of their possession.
The title suit was decreed in favour of the respondent's vendors
by judgment dated 20.8.2018 and decree dated 1.9.2018. It was
during pendency of the said suit that the respondent herein
purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed dated
24.7.2018.
5
. On account of the suit having been decreed, the
name of respondent was mutated but as the Revenue Authority
were not correcting the record of rights, he was not able to sell
the land. The respondent thus filed CWJC no.12635 of 2019
which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 25.11.2020 mainly on the ground of the State of Bihar
having preferred Title Appeal no.27 of 2019 which was pending.
LPA no.129 of 2021 preferred by the respondent was heard
analogous with LPA no.582 of 2021, the appellants in both the
appeals being aggrieved for the reason that the sale deeds were
not being registered. This Court by its common judgment dated
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
7.11.2022 allowed both the appeals directing the Registering
Authority to register the land after being satisfied that the
documents offered on behalf of the appellants therein satisfy the
requirements and formalities.
6. A letter bearing no.159 dated 19.1.2016 was sent by
the Circle Officer, Akbarpur to the Sub-Registrar, Rajauli.
Enclosed with the said letter was a list of plots belonging to the
Government in the revenue village under Circle Akbarpur. The
list contained the land of the respondent measuring an area of
1.01 acres (in R.S. Plot no.782) and 1.22 acres (in R.S. Plot
no.806), both in R.S. Khata no.279.
7. It was the case of the respondent that in the Title
Suit no.202 of 2013 filed by the vendors of the respondent,
besides the heirs of the Avaidh Dakhalkar ie Triveni Prasad
Singh, the State of Bihar through the Collector, Nawada as also
the Circle Officer, Akbarpur were also parties. Thus the
judgment and decree in the suit was binding on them. Later,
pursuant to the order passed in Mutation Case no.555-R-
27/2018-19, the name of the respondent was mutated with
respect to the land in question. Subsequently on order dated
24.11.2020 being passed by the D.C.L.R., Rajauli in Mutation
Appeal no.28 of 2019-20, the order of the Circle Officer was set
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
aside, however on a revision having been preferred, pursuant an
order dated 10.8.2021 passed in Mutation Revision Case
no.21/2020-21, the Additional Collector, Nawada was pleased to
set aside the order passed by the D.C.L.R, Rajauli, thus
restoring the order of mutation passed in favour of the
respondent by the Circle Officer, Akbarpur. On the case being
remanded, the D.C.L.R., Rajauli closed the matter holding that
in view of the pendency of the title suit, it would not be proper
to pass any orders in the said case.
8. Taking into consideration the above facts as also
that (1) the vendors of the respondent had judgment and decree
(in T.S no.202 of 2013) in their favour wherein the State of
Bihar as also heirs of the Avaidh Dakhalkar ie Triveni Prasad
Singh were parties; (2) the Circle Officer, Akbarpur had passed
order for mutation of the respondent's name in Mutation Case
no.555-R-27/2018-19; (3) the order of the D.C.L.R., Rajauli
reversing the order passed by the Circle Officer, Akbarpur had
itself been set aside; this Court allowed the writ application
(CWJC no.4501 of 2021) in the terms stated herein above and
directing that on payment of rent by the respondent, the Circle
Officer, Akbarpur, District Nawada shall issue rent receipt to the
respondent.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
9. Learned Advocate General appearing for the
petitioners submitted that after passing of the order dated
28.6.2023 in CWJC no.4501 of 2021, the Circle Officer,
Akbarpur by his letter no.1260 dated 29.9.2023 requested the
District Magistrate, Nawada to enquire into the exhibits of Title
Suit no.202 of 2013 which had been filed by the vendor of the
respondent. A four men enquiry team under the Chairmanship of
the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajauli was formed and
they submitted their detailed enquiry report vide letter no.680
dated 21.11.2023. It is submitted that as per the report, it
appears that the rent receipt bearing no.X/64 120345 is forged
and the jamabandi number mentioned on the receipt is also not
existing in the name of the mother of the respondent's vendor. It
was further submitted that even the certified copy of the
jamabandi return was forged and fabricated and the so called
certified copy of the jamabandi return was prepared and
delivered on a date which was Sunday, thus clearly showing that
the same was not genuine. It was submitted that the judgment
and decree in T.S. no.202 of 2013 had been obtained on the
basis of forged and fabricated documents, neither the respondent
nor the respondent's vendor have ever cultivated the land nor do
they have possession over the same. Their only intention is to
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
grab Government land and to sell the same to others. It was
submitted that the Circle Officer, Akbarpur accepted his error in
allowing the mutation case filed by the respondent and therefore
requested the D.C.L.R., Rajauli by his letter dated 23.11.2018 to
cancel the jamabandi created in favour of the respondent. It was
further submitted that Title Appeal no.27 of 2019 has been
preferred by the State of Bihar against the judgment and decree
passed in Title Suit no.202 of 2013 and the same is pending. The
decree having been obtained by playing fraud on Court, the
same is a nullity.
10. In the facts of the case, it was submitted on behalf
of the petitioners that the judgment dated 28.6.2023 allowing
CWJC no.4501 of 2021 be reviewed and the application be
allowed. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed
on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Raja Shatrunji vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan & Ors.;
(1971) 2 SCC 200, Board of Control for Cricket in India &
Anr. vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors; (2005) 4 SCC 741 and
Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.; (2008) 7 SCC
38.
11. In response, Shri Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that as mentioned under
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' in short),
the scope of review is very limited. None of the conditions
mentioned therein arise in the instant case. The petitioners are
relying on certain facts brought on record by them which have
been created by them almost six months after passing of the
order, review of which is sought. As held in the judgment in the
case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Kamal Sengupta &
Anr.; (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Tribunal/Court must confine its
adjudication with reference to the material which was available
at the time of the initial decision. Further in reference to the said
judgment, it was submitted that even discovery of new or
important matter or evidence is not a sufficient ground for
review but the party seeking review has also to show that such
matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after
exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced
before the Court earlier. Further reliance was placed on the
judgment in the case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India; AIR
2000 SC 1650 to submit that the power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a
view.
12. Referring to the judgment in the case of Vijay
Kumar Prasad vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.; 2017 (1) PLJR
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
818, it is submitted that no person can be a judge in his own
matter. Learned counsel submits that while on one hand the
State was a party in the suit and as per their own showing, they
have preferred an appeal which is pending, at the same time
they are claiming to have enquired into the matter and arrived at
a finding of the documents produced by the respondent's vendor
in the title suit being forged. It is submitted that the fact as to
whether any document is forged or not can only be decided by a
competent Civil Court and not the party/State themselves.
Unless the judgment and decree in favour of the vendor of the
respondent is reversed by the lower appellate Court, the State
has no justification to contend that the same has been obtained
on the basis of forged documents. It is submitted that the review
application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of limitation
also.
13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment dated
31.7.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application no.41 of
2023 (M/s Vaid Organics and Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko.
Thru. Its Director Swarn Singh vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy.
Deptt. Of Industries U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Ors.)
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
the material on record. Having perused the contents of the order
dated 28.6.2023, review of which is sought together with the
grounds raised in the instant review application, it would
transpire that what the petitioners are primarily relying upon are
the contents of an enquiry report, enquiry of which was
conducted subsequent to the passing of the judgment under
review. At the same time, it is not in dispute that in the Title Suit
no.202 of 2013 filed by the respondent's vendor both the State
of Bihar as also the heirs of the Avaidh Dakhalkar were parties
and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent's vendor.
Further, it is also not in dispute that the Circle Officer, Akbarpur
passed order for mutation of the respondent's name in the
mutation case.
15. The petitioners in their prayer for review of the
order dated 28.6.2023 mainly relied on the fact that subsequent
to the said order, at the instance of the Circle Officer, Akbarpur,
a four member enquiry team was constituted which on enquiry
submitted their report to the effect that the documents/exhibits
on the basis of which the respondent's vendor had got the
judgment and decree in the title suit in his favour, were forged.
In addition, review was being sought also on the ground that
Title Appeal no. 27 of 2019 had been preferred by the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
petitioners/State of Bihar against the judgment and decree
passed in Title Suit no.202 of 2013.
16. The grounds for filing a review has been
mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC which reads as
follows :-
"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 decree was
passed or order made, or on account of some mistake
or 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
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
Court the case on which he applies 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.]"
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors.; (1997) 8 SCC
715 observed that it was well settled that review proceedings
have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. It held as follows :-
"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. v. Govt. of A.P. this
Court opined:
"what, however, we are now 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 occasion
the 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
distinction which is real, though it might not always
be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
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 erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected, but lies only for patent error."
18. As to what is an error apparent on face of the
record came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs.
Mallikarjun Bavanappa Tirumale; AIR 1960 SC 137 wherein
it held as follows :-
"........An error which has to be
established by a long drawn process of reasoning
on points where there may conceivably be two
opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent
on the face of the record. As the above discussion of
the rival contentions show the alleged error in the
present case is far from self evident and if it can be
established, it has to be established by lengthy and
complicated arguments. We do not think such an
error can be cured by a writ of certiorari according
to the rule governing the powers of the superior
court to issue such a writ. ...."
19. Coming to the judgments relied upon by learned
Advocate General appearing for the petitioners, so far as the
judgment in the case of Raja Shatrunji (supra) is concerned,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that the law in
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
question therein had already come into effect on 25.5.1953,
however when the matter was being heard by the Allahabad
High Court on 27.11.1962, the amendment had not come into
the statute book. The High Court, therefore, was of the opinion
that relief should be granted under Order XLVII of the CPC on
the principles of review defined by the Court and use of the
words 'any other sufficient reason' in Order XLVII.
20. In its judgment in the case of Netaji Cricket Club
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for filing an
application for review, Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC provides
that the same would be maintainable not only upon discovery of
a new and important piece of evidence for when their exists an
error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is
necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other
sufficient reason. It held that sufficient reason is wide enough to
include a misconception of fact or law by a Court.
21. In the case of Jagmohan Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC does
not preclude the High Court to take into consideration any
subsequent event. It held that if imparting of justice in a given
situation is a goal of the judiciary, the Court may take into
consideration, on rare occasions, the subsequent events.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
22. So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned,
the only two subsequent events being contended on behalf of the
petitioners is firstly that in an enquiry conducted by the State
Authorities themselves, some exhibits filed by the respondent's
vendor in Title Suit no.202 of 2013 were found to be forged and
secondly that a title appeal has been preferred by the State
against the judgment and decree passed in the title suit. The
State themselves being parties/defendants in the title suit which
was decreed in favour of the respondent's vendor cannot set at
naught the effects of the judgment and decree against them on
the basis of an enquiry conducted by their Officers. The
judgment and decree can only be set aside in an appeal which
even as per the case of the State, they have preferred and the
same is pending.
23. At this stage, it would also be relevant to refer to
the judgment in the case of Kamal Sengupta (supra) wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the provision of
review under Order XLVII of the CPC and a number of other
judgments in the case of Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma
Rao vs. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao; (1899-1900) 27 IA
197, Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter; 1949 FCR 36,
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Mar Poulose Anthanasius;
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
AIR 1954 SC 526, Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of
A.P.; AIR 1964 SC 1372, Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi; (1997)
8 SCC 715, Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik; (2006) 4 SCC 78,
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma; (1979) 4
SCC 389, K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India; (1997) 6 SCC 473,
Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa; (1999) 9 SCC 596, State of
Haryana vs. M.P. Mohla; (2007) 1 SCC 457 and Gopal Singh
vs. State Cadre Forest Officers' Assn.; (2007) 9 SCC 369,
proceeded to state the grounds for review and also held in
paragraph no.35 (vii) that while considering an application for
review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference
to material which was available at the time of initial decision.
Paragraph no. 35 of Kamal Sengupta (supra) reads as
follows :-
"35. The principles which can be culled
out from the abovenoted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review
its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act
is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision
on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47
Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient
reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be
interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
(iv) An error which is not self-evident
and which can be discovered by a long process of
reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent
on the face of record justifying exercise of power
under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot
be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of
review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed
under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench
of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for
review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication
with reference to material which was available at
the time of initial decision. The happening of some
subsequent event or a development cannot be taken
note of for declaring the initial order/decision as
vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important
matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for
review. The party seeking review has also to show
that such matter or evidence was not within its
knowledge and even after the exercise of due
diligence, the same could not be produced before
the court/tribunal earlier.
(emphasis supplied)
24. Thus from the facts stated herein above, the
petitioners not having been able to point out any error apparent
on the face of the order dated 28.6.2023 and relying only on the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.115 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
enquiry report of the State Authorities, in an enquiry conducted
after the order (of which review is sought) was passed and the
pendency of the title appeal, in the opinion of the Court, the
petitioners have not made out a case for review of the order
dated 28.6.2023.
25. The Court finds no merit in the instant review
application and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 14.02.2025
Uploading Date 11.04.2025
Transmission Date
