Bhav Nath Singh (B.n. Singh) … v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Commissioner on 11 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. Finding the reasons/grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay to be sufficient, the application is allowed.

2. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. (Order on the Civil Misc. Review Application)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Standing Counsel

1. for the State and perused the record. Present review application under Chapter V Rule 12 of the 2. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 read with Section 114 Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant in relation to final judgment and order dated 01.11.2023, passed in Writ-C No.1945 of 2023 (Rizwan Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others). The relevant portion of the judgment under review, extracted herein under, would indicate that the same was passed after considering the prayer 2 CMRAD No. - 35 of 2024 sought, facts pleaded as also the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners/review applicant. Relevant paragraphs 17 to 22 of the judgment under review are extracted herein under :- "17. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

18. Undisputed relevant facts are as under: (i) In the case instituted by the petitioner, a report dated 11.04.2016 was forwarded by Tehsildar concerned on 10.05.2016 (Annexure No. 6 to the petition) and the same was taken note of by the opposite party no. 2 while passing the order dated 26.07.2021 and it further appears from the order dated 26.07.2021 that a fresh report was called upon and in response to the same, a report dated 06.07.2021 was submitted. It further reflects that from the order dated 26.07.2021 including the operative portion, quoted above, that the basis of order dated 26.07.2021 passed by opposite party no. 2 is the report dated 06.07.2021. (ii) From the order dated 26.07.2021 passed in the case instituted by the opposite party no. 4, it is apparent including the operative portion that the same is also based upon the report dated 06.07.2021. (iii) The fact that while passing the order dated 26.07.2021 in both the cases, the opposite party no. 2 relied upon the report dated 06.07.2021 and according to the same the correction in map related to the gatas, in issue i.e. Gata No. 532 (belongs to the opposite party no. 4) and Gata No. 534 (belongs to the petitioner) is required.

19. In Aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor Ali Khan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529, the Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to several cases, and after considering the theory of "useless" or "empty formality" and noting "admitted or undisputed" facts, held that the only conclusion which could be drawn was that "had the petitioner been given notice", it "would not have made any difference" and, hence, no prejudice has been caused. The relevant portion of the report reads as under: "Point 5

20. This is the crucial point in this case. As already stated under Point 4, in the case of Mr Mansoor Ali Khan, notice calling for an explanation had not been issued under Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969 Rules. Question is whether interference is not called for in the special circumstances of the case.

21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1999) 6 SCC 237] there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice.

22. In M.C. Mehta [(1999) 6 SCC 237] it was pointed out that at one time, it was held in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL)] that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other "de facto" prejudice needed to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] Chinnappa Reddy, J. followed Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL)] and set aside the order of supersession of the New Delhi Metropolitan Committee rejecting the argument that there was no prejudice though notice 3 CMRAD No. - 35 of 2024 was not given. The proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But even in that case certain exceptions were laid down to which we shall presently refer.

23. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor case [(1980) 4 SCC 379] laid down two exceptions (at SCC p. 395) namely, if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception.

24. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India [(1984) 1 SCC 43 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 62] Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed, quoting Wade's Administrative Law (5th Edn., pp. 472-75), as follows: (SCC p. 58, para 31) "[I]t is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent. ... There must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with, and so forth." Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases. The above ruling and various other rulings taking the same view have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] . In that case, the principle of "prejudice" has been further elaborated. The same principle has been reiterated again in Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460]

25. The "useless formality" theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta [(1999) 6 SCC 237] referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, de Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via media rules. We do not think it necessary in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case.

26. It will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case of Mr Mansoor Ali Khan to show that his case will fall within the exceptions stated by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] , namely, that on the admitted or indisputable facts, only one view is possible. In that event no prejudice can be said to have been caused to Mr Mansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued." 4 CMRAD No. - 35 of 2024

20. For the reasons aforesaid and taking note of the undisputed facts, indicated above, this Court finds that no fruitful purpose would be served in providing an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 4 and being so the order(s) dated 23.01.2023 and 22.12.2022 are liable to be interfered with.

21. Accordingly, the order(s) dated 23.01.2023 and 22.12.2022 (Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to the petition, respectively) are hereby set aside and the order dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure No. 8 to the petition) passed in the case of the petitioner, is restored. The concerned authority is directed to correct the revenue map in terms of order(s) dated 26.07.2021 passed in both the cases.

22. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed."

3. After considering the aforesaid as also the law on the issue this court vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2023, under review, allowed the petition.

4. The grounds for seeking review of judgment and order dated 01.11.2023 taken in the present application, are extracted hereinunder:- Because, the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2023, has been "(A) passed by this Hon'ble Court thereby directed to the concerned authority to correct the map in pursuance of the earlier order dated 26.07.2021, without considering the legal point that due to this direction, the statuary remedy of revision under section-219 of U.P.L.R. Act, would be lapsed, as such the impugned order is illegal and liable to be reviewed. Because, from the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 01.11.2023, (B) passed by this Hon'ble Court, it is clear that this Hon'ble Court has decided the writ petition only by testing the issue that whether the order dated 26.07.2021 can be recalled or not on the basis that no opportunity of hearing has been given to him and no merit of case has been decided /adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court, as such the merit of case can be challenged by filing the revision. Because, while passing the impugned order dated 01.11.2023, this (C). Hon'ble Court failed to consider that the review applicant could not file his objection against the erroneous report in map correction case filed by Mohd. Rizwan due to not impleading the party in that case and he also could not file the objection in his case due to some inadvertence as well as negligence of his counsel. Thus he could not file the objection against the report, upon which after relying the order dated 26.07.2021 has been passed. (D). Because, the review applicant has questioned the report of map correction by filing the recall applications dated 05.09.2022 in both cases and same have been allowed vide order dated 22.12.2022, as such it cannot be said that the review applicant has no objection against the report of map correction. (E). Because, this Hon'ble Court also failed to consider that the writ petition as well as revision filed by Mohd. Rizwan was not maintainable due to non-joinder of parties as the review opposite party no.3 / petitioner arrayed 13 opposite parties in case of map correction before the District Magistrate, Lucknow, but at the stage of revision as well as writ petition, he did not array all the parties. (F). Because, the report for map correction has not been proved by the Tehsil authority before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lucknow. 5 CMRAD No. - 35 of 2024 Because, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable (G). Because, the review opposite party no.3 / petitioner is builder and he wants to grab the road side land as well as government land which is situated there. (H). Because, there was no any illegality and infirmity in the orders dated 23.01.2023 and 22.12.2022, passed by the revisional court as well as Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow, as such same were liable to be confirmed. (I). due to non-joinder of parties as well as summary proceeding. (J). Because, there is an error apparent on the face of jugdment and order thereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue the direction to correct the map as per the order dated 26.07.2021, from the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the statuary remedy of revision has been lapsed for the review applicant. Because, there is cemented road between the gata no.534 Sa of review (K). opposite party no.3 and the gata no.532/2 of review applicant and in west side of road, the gata no.534 is situated and in east side of road, the gata no.532/2 is situated. Thus aforesaid both gata numbers are situated in different two sectors and the aforesaid cemented road are being used for long times, but the Revenue Inspector has not mentioned in its report about the aforesaid cemented road, it creates doubt that the revenue inspector did not make spot inspection. (L). Because, while submitting the aforesaid report, the Revenue Inspector, changed the place of the gata no.532 in the map. while in the case of map correction, the line can be changed, but the plot number cannot be substituted to another place and in this situation, the report of the Revenue Inspector is erroneous and against the principles of map correction, hence same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. (M). Because, all the tenure holders of adjacent gata numbers (plots) should have made the parties in case of map correction, but the review opposite party no.3 /petitioner did not make the party to the review applicant Mr. B.N. Singh who is sankramaniya Bhumidhar of gata no.532/2 area 0.068 hectare, situated at village- Khadauha, Pargana and Tehsil- Malihabad, District Lucknow, while the boundary/ shapes of gata no.534 and 532 are adjoining, it is evident from the map as well as the site plan of report."

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: 6 CMRAD No. - 35 of 2024 (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 CMRAD No. - 35 of 2024

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:— CPC “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 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 justifying the court to exercise its power of error apparent on the face of the record review under Order 47 Rule 1 . In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 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.” CPC CPC

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 . 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.” CPC

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.” 8 CMRAD No. - 35 of 2024 (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 01.11.2023, under review, this Court finds no force in the present review application for the reasons that while passing the judgment dated 01.11.2023 this Court considered the relevant law on the issue as also the undisputed facts of the case and submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

10. No order as to costs. November 11, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench