Chattisgarh High CourtJeevan And Ors vs Smt.Jainbaid Rakesh @ Rakku And Ors on 10 November, 2022Author:Narendra Kumar VyasBench:Narendra Kumar VyasPage 1 of 16\n\n                                                                 NAFR\n\n          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n\n                    WP (227) No. 2723 of 2010\n\n                     Reserved on : 26.07.2022\n\n                     Delivered on : 10.11.2022\n\n1.   Jeevan, aged about 33 years, S/o Goma,\n2.   Dharmendra (Dead) through-\n     Sunita, aged about 24 years, W/o Late Dharmendra, R/o Village-\n     Barkai, Tahsil- Narharpur, District- Kanker (C.G.)\n3.   Taran, aged about 26 years, S/o Goma.\n4.   Dharan, aged about 18 years, S/o Goma.\n5.   Ram Bai, aged about 58 years, D/o Lae Phoolsingh By Caste-\n     Gond.\n6.   Smt. Rajbati, aged about 65 years, W/o Late Phoolsingh.\n     All are R/o Village Barkai, Tahsil- Narharpur, District- Kanker\n     (C.G.)\n                                                        ---- Petitioners\n                               Versus\n1.   Smt. Jainbai (Died) through representative Rakesh @ Rakku,\n     Taram, S/o Rai Singh Taram by Occupation Labour, R/o Village-\n     Bevrati, Tahsil & District- Kanker (C.G.)\n2.   The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Kanker (C.G.)\n3.   Jainibai, D/o Budhram by Caste Gond, R/o Village- Sahavada,\n     Tahsil- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.)\n4.   Gendi Bai, D/o Budhram, By Caste Gond, R/o Lakhanpuri,\n     Tahsil- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.)\n5.   Smt. Phoolsunder Devi, aged about 55 years, W/o Vyas Prasad.\n6.   Sanjay Sharma, aged about 41 years, S/o Vyasprasad.\n7.   Sunita Sharma, aged about 25 years, D/o Vyasprasad.\n8.   Udayprakash, aged about 20 years, S/o Vyasprasad.\n9.   Shailesh Sharma, aged about 30 years,\n     Respondents No. 5 to 9 are R/o Lattipara, Tahsil & District-Kanker (C.G.)---- Respondents\n\nFor Petitioners                : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.\nFor Respondent No. 1           : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate.\nFor State/ Respondent No. 2    : Mr. Shubham Verma, P.L.\nFor Respondents No. 5 to 9     : Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate.Page 2 of 16Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas\n\n                         C.A.V. JUDGMENT1.   The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition underArticle 227of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 09.10.2009\n\n     (Annexure P/10) passed by the Board of Revenue reviewing its\n\n     earlier order dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed in\n\n     Revenue Case No. 02/A-23/2002-03 (Smt. Jainbai Vs. Smt.\n\n     Sukhantinbai & 14 others) wherein the said review application\n\n     has been allowed quashing the earlier order dated 22.07.2008 &\n\n     and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Kanker on\n\n     07.08.2000.2.   The brief facts as reflected from records are that husband of\n\n     petitioner No. 5 was original owner of the agriculture land\n\n     situated at Khasra No. 464/1 area 7.12 acres and out of that\n\n     from Khasra No. 64/01 Gha area 0.15 decimal, 464/01 Da area\n\n     0.10, Khasra No. 464/01 Ch area 0.30 total 0.60 decimal land\n\n     had been purchased by the Vyas Prasad Sharma in the name of\n\n     Jain Bai. It has been contended that the said transaction was\n\n     committed on fraud, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the\n\n     said transaction on account of violation of Section 170 of the\n\n     Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code, 1959"). The\n\n     Sub-Divisional Officer, Kanker vide order dated 13.12.1988\n\n     (Annexure P/1) in Revenue Case No. 1/A-23/88-89 (Smt. Rajbati\n\n     Vs. Vyas Prasad Sharma & others) has allowed the application\n\n     and set aside the transfer of the land, further directing to return-\n\n     back the land to husband of applicant Rajbati. Against whichPage 3 of 16Jain Bai has filed appeal before the Additional Collector, Kanker,\n\n     who vide order dated 12.06.1990 (Annexure P/2) in Revenue\n\n     Appeal Case No. 2/A-23/88-89 has set aside the order passed\n\n     by the Sub-Divisional Officer as the land does not fall within the\n\n     ambit of Section 170 (B) of the Code, 1959. Against that Jain Bai\n\n     has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which is\n\n     registered as Revenue Case No. 123-Five/90 & 147-Five/90.\n\n     Both Jain Bai and Rajbati have preferred revision before the\n\n     Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated\n\n     02.06.1992 (Annexure P/3) has remanded the matter for enquiry\n\n     and further proceeding to the Additional Collector, Kanker.3.   The Additional Collector vide order dated 07.08.2000 (Annexure\n\n     P/4) in Revision No. 2/A-23/97-98 has held that the transaction\n\n     between tribal to tribal is Benami transaction. There was clearly\n\n     oral   and   documentary    evidence    that   non-tribals   are   in\n\n     possession of the land, therefore, the land was directed to be\n\n     reverted back to the original tribal and if the original tribal has\n\n     expired then the land shall be allotted to their legal heirs.\n\n     Learned Additional Collector has also directed the Sub-Divisional\n\n     Officer to give possession to the original tribal within 15 days\n\n     from the date of receipt copy of the order and also directed to\n\n     submit compliance report. Against that Jain Bai has preferred\n\n     Revision before the Board of Revenue who vide order dated\n\n     22.07.2008 (Annexure P/5) has rejected the revision. Learned\n\n     Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision has recorded its\n\n     finding that the applicants are unable to establish that thePage 4 of 16transaction was held between tribal to tribal, therefore, adverse\n\n     inference was drawn in favour of respondents No. 1 to 7. The\n\n     Board of Revenue has also recorded its finding that the\n\n     Collector, Kanker has recorded its finding on the basis of\n\n     direction given by the Board of Revenue on 02.06.1992,\n\n     therefore, no ground for interference is made out and\n\n     accordingly, rejected the revision petition.4.   Thereafter, respondent No. 1/Jain Bai has filed application for\n\n     reviewing the order dated 22.07.2008 under Section 51 of the\n\n     Code, 1959 mainly contending that the Board of Revenue has\n\n     not taken into consideration whether possession is proved from\n\n     documentary evidence adduced by the parties with regard to\n\n     possession of land by the tribal and since transaction is done\n\n     between tribal to tribal, therefore, provisions of Section 165(6) &\n\n     170 (B) of the Code, 1959 are not extracted. Learned Board of\n\n     Revenue has also not given any specific finding that the land is\n\n     situated at urban area, therefore, the provisions of Sections\n\n     165(6) & 170 (B) of the Code, 1959 are not attracted as it is\n\n     confined to agricultural land only. It has also been contended\n\n     that since registration of the property was done between tribal to\n\n     tribal in the year 1981-82, therefore, provisions of Section 170\n\n     (B) of the Code, 1959 were not attracted. Respondent No. 1 has\n\n     also filed the application for stay of the order under Section 52(2)\n\n     of the Code, 1959 and has prayed for review of the order.5.   The Board of Revenue vide order dated 14.05.2009 has stayed\n\n     the further proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner. InPage 5 of 16pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner by the Board of\n\n     Revenue,    the   petitioner   has    raised   objection   about\n\n     maintainability of the review application mainly contending that\n\n     the review application has been filed after 10 months delay\n\n     though respondent No. 1 and her counsel have appeared before\n\n     the Board of Revenue on every date of hearing i.e. from\n\n     18.03.2008 to 31.03.2008 and put their signature, therefore, the\n\n     contention that they are not aware about the date of hearing,\n\n     cannot be considered. It has also been contended that the\n\n     application filed by them underSection 5of Limitation Act and\n\n     Section 47 of the Code, 1959 are not supported by an affidavit,\n\n     therefore, the application for condonation of delay and the\n\n     review application deserve to be rejected. It has also been\n\n     contended that the grounds which have been raised by the\n\n     applicants is not legal issue on which, the review application is\n\n     maintainable, therefore, the revenue application deserves to be\n\n     rejected. The Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated\n\n     09.10.2009 (Annexure P/10) has allowed the review application\n\n     by recorded its finding that purchaser Jain Bai and seller Phool\n\n     Singh both belong to Schedule Category, therefore, the\n\n     transaction between them is bonafide transaction and also set\n\n     aside the order dated 07.08.2000 passed by the Collector,\n\n     Kanker.6.   Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Board of\n\n     Revenue without assigning any reason for review and without\n\n     considering the scope/provisions/permissible grounds of reviewPage 6 of 16as provided underOrder 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. which are\n\n         attracted or not looking to the present facts and circumstances of\n\n         the case, has allowed the review application which is illegality. It\n\n         has also been contended that the Board of Revenue without\n\n         considering the facts that review was filed belatedly and no\n\n         proper explanation for condonation of delay, has been filed,\n\n         therefore, prayed for quashing of the order passed by the Board\n\n         of Revenue on 09.10.2009 (Annexure P/10).In support of his\n\n         contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by\n\n         Hon'ble the Supreme Court inBhaiji Vs. Sub Divisional Officer\n\n         Thandla1,Radhiya Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others2,A. Sriniwas Rao & others Vs. Union of India & others3 & Ram\n\n         Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat4.7.       On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1\n\n         reiterated the factual matrix and would submit that the alleged\n\n         transaction has been taken place in between the persons of\n\n         aboriginal tribes and the provisions contained in theProhibition\n\n         of Benami Transaction Act, 1988have been ignored while\n\n         passing the order challenged in review speciallySection 3of the\n\n         Benami Transaction Act, 1988 which prohibits such plea, hence,\n\n         the review was required, therefore, the Board of Revenue has\n\n         rightly passed the order. He would further submit that the spot\n\n         inspection and demarcation was conducted by the revenue\n\n         official in which it was found that the purchaser, the person\n\n1    (2003) 1 SCC 692\n2    Review Petition No. 53 of 2009 (Decided on 10.07.2009)\n3    2007 LAB I.C. 367\n4    AIRONLINE 2020 SC 813Page 7 of 16belonging to the aboriginal tribe was found in possession, such\n\nmaterial evidence was ignored while passing the order,\n\ntherefore, the review petition was tenable. He would further\n\nsubmit that as per Section 170B of the Code, 1959 every person\n\nwho on the date of commencement of the M.P. Land Revenue\n\nCode (Amendment) Act, 1980, is in possession of which belongs\n\nto a member of tribe which has been declared to be an\n\naboriginal tribe between the period commencing on 22nd\n\nOctober, 1959 and ending on the date of commencement of\n\nAmendment Act, 1980 shall within two years of such\n\ncommencement, notify to the Sub-Divisional Officer in such form\n\nand in such manner as may be prescribed, all the information as\n\nto how he has come in possession of such land and thereafter\n\nthe Sub-Divisional Officer has to conduct the enquiry as provided\n\ninSection 3of 170B of the Code, 1959. The subject matter was\n\nnot covered within the said period still Sub-Divisional Officer has\n\npassed the order which has been rightly ractified in the review.\n\nHe would further submit that the provision contained underSection 91of the Evidence Act has been violated while passing\n\nthe order which prohibits the admissibility of oral evidence in\n\nplace of the documentary evidence as the sale deeds were\n\nexecuted by aboriginal tribe in favour of another aboriginal tribe.\n\nHe would further submit that the order of review dated\n\n09.10.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue is perfectly in\n\naccordance with law.In support of his contention, heplaced\n\nreliance uponthe judgment rendered by Hon'ble the SupremePage 8 of 16Court in Bate Krishna Damani (Dead) through Lrs.Vs.\n\n         Kailash Chand Srivastava & another 5, Board of Control for\n\n         Cricket inIndia & another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & others6,Dhirendra Nath Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh&\n\n         another7,Nityanand Panigrahi Vs. State of M.P. & others8 &Bedram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others9 and would pray\n\n         for dismissal of the writ petition.8.       I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the\n\n         documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.9.       The issue required to be determined by this Court is whether the\n\n         learned Board of Revenue was justified in reviewing its own\n\n         order looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and\n\n         whether the grounds which have been raised by respondent No.\n\n         1 in review application can be a ground permissible to him\n\n         exercising its power of review by the Board of Revenue. For\n\n         better understanding the matter, it is expedient for this Court to\n\n         extract the provisions which govern the power of review by the\n\n         revenue authority under the Land Revenue Code, 1959.Section\n\n         51of the Code, 1959 provides power for review by the revenue\n\n         authority.Section 51 (2)provides that no order shall be reviewed\n\n         except on the grounds provided for inthe Code of Civil\n\n         Procedure, 1908, therefore, the grounds which have been raised\n\n         by the petitioner can said to be grounds available underOrder\n\n         47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. or not. Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 of\n5    AIR 1995 SC 453\n6    AIR 2005 SC 592\n7    1985 M.P.L.J. 786\n8    2009 (5) M.P.H.T. 30 (CG)9    WP No. 2738 of 2002 (Decided on 10.05.2019)Page 9 of 16C.P.C. &Section 51of the Code, 1959 are extracted below:-"Section 114of the C.P.C.- Review. - Subject as\n   aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved--(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed\n   by this Code, but from which no appeal has been\n   preferred.(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed\n   by this Code, or(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small\n   Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court\n   which passed the decree or made the order, and the\n   Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.""Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.-1. Application for review of judgment- (1) Any person\n   considering himself aggrieved-(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed,\n   but from which no appeal has been preferred,(b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed,\n   or(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small\n   Causes,\n   and who, from the discovery of new and important matter\n   or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was\n   not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him\n   at the time when the decree was passed or Order made,\n   or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the\n   face of the record of for any other sufficient reason,\n   desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or Order\n   made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to\n   the Court which passed the decree or made the Order.\n   (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on Order\n   may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the\n   pendency of an appeal by some other party except where\n   the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant\n   and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can\n   present to the Appellate Court the case on which he\n   applies for the review.[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of\n   law on which the judgment of the Court is based has\n   been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of\n   a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground\n   for the review of such judgment.]\n   "Section 51of the Code, 1959- Review of orders:- (1)\n   The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on\n   its/his own motion or on the application of any party\n   interested review any order passed by itself/himself or byPage 10 of 16any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order\n         in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit :Provided that-(i) if the [Commissioner], Settlement Commissioner,\n         Collector or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to\n         review any order which he has not himself passed, he\n         shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an\n         officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer\n         proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself\n         or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in\n         writing of the authority to whom he is immediately\n         subordinate;(i-a) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice\n         has been given to the parties interested to appear and be\n         heard in support of such order;(ii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or\n         which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so\n         long as such appeal or proceedings are pending be\n         reviewed;(iii) no order affecting any question of right between\n         private persons shall be reviewed except on the\n         application of a party to the proceedings, and no\n         application for the review of such order shall be\n         entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the\n         passing of the order.(2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds\n         provided for inthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of\n         1908).(3) For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be\n         deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue\n         Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to\n         exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there\n         is no successor in the district.(4) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on\n         revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer\n         subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority."10.   From bare perusal of the review petition filed before the Board of\n\n      Revenue, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 1 has filed review\n\n      petition pointing out the certain non-consideration of material\n\n      facts contending that the land was in possession of tribal,\n\n      therefore, plea of Benami transaction cannot be established. It\n\n      has been contended that the Board of Revenue has not takenPage 11 of 16into consideration the provisions of Benami transaction which\n\n      have separately the mechanism for declaring any transaction to\n\n      be Benami transaction and in the present case, the transaction\n\n      was done between tribal to tribal, therefore, it is apparent\n\n      mistake which needs to be reviewed and accordingly, it has\n\n      rightly been reviewed by the Board of Revenue. Respondent No.\n\n      1 has also contended that provisions of Section 165(6) and 170\n\n      of the Code, 1959 are not applicable to the present facts of the\n\n      case and these are the vital facts, which have not been taken\n\n      into consideration, therefore, review is very much maintainable.11.   From perusal of the provisions, it is clear that the power of\n\n      review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important\n\n      matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was\n\n      not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or\n\n      could not be produced by him at the time when the order was\n\n      made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error\n\n      apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be\n\n      exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be\n\n      exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on\n\n      merits.12.   From the averments made in the application for review filed\n\n      before the Board of Revenue, it is quite vivid that respondent No.\n\n      1 has not been able to point out any error which is manifest on\n\n      the face of record which would have effect on doing justice\n\n      between the parties. The power, scope and limitation of\n\n      reviewing the order has come up for consideration beforePage 12 of 16Hon'ble the Supreme Court inS. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.\n\n        Narayana Reddy& others10, wherein Hon'ble Bench of three\n\n        judges has held at paragraph 14, 19 & 20 as under:-"14. In Col.Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and\n            Others10, this Court observed that a review of an earlier\n            order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the\n            material error which is manifest on the face of the order,\n            would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its\n            soundness. The observations made are as under:"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we\n                 resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any\n                 feeling that the party has been hurt without being\n                 heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless\n                 satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of\n                 the order, undermines its soundness or results in\n                 miscarriage of justice.InSow Chandra Kante and\n                 Another v. Sheikh Habib11 this Court observed :\n                     'A review of a judgment is a serious step and\n                     reluctant resort to it is proper only where a\n                     glaring omission or patent mistake or like\n                     grave error has crept in earlier by judicial\n                     fallibility. ... The present stage is not a virgin\n                     ground but review of an earlier order which\n                     has the normal feature of finality.' " (emphasis\n                     added)19. After discussing a series of decisions on review\n            jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others 24,\n            this Court observed that review proceedings have to be\n            strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII\n            Rule 1,CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in\n            the review application has already been dealt with and\n            answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the\n            impugned judgment only because an alternative view is\n            possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction\n            were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as\n            below:"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following\n                 grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by\n                 the statute:20.1. When the review will be maintainable:(i) Discovery of new and important matter or\n                     evidence which, after the exercise of due\n                     diligence, was not within knowledge of the\n                     petitioner or could not be produced by him;10 Civil Appeals No. 5503-5504 of 2022 (Decided on 18.08.2022)Page 13 of 16(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the\n      record;(iii) Any other sufficient reason.The words "any other sufficient reason" has\n      been interpreted inChajju Ram vs. Neki, and\n      approved by this Court inMoran Mar\n      Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar\n      Poulose Athanasius & Ors.to mean "a reason\n      sufficient on grounds at least analogous to\n      those specified in the rule".The same\n      principles have been reiterated inUnion of\n      India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. &\n      Ors.20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument\n      is not enough to reopen concluded\n      adjudications.(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated\n      with the original hearing of the case.(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the\n      material error, manifest on the face of the\n      order, undermines its soundness or results in\n      miscarriage of justice.(v) A review is by no means an appeal in\n      disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent\n      error.(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the\n      subject cannot be a ground for review.(vii) The error apparent on the face of the\n      record should not be an error which has to be\n      fished out and searched.(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is\n      fully within the domain of the appellate court, it\n      cannot be permitted to be advanced in the\n      review petition.(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same\n      relief sought at the time of arguing the main\n      matter had been negatived."20.InAribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak\nSharma15, this Court was examining an order passed by\nthe Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier\njudgment that went in favour of the appellant, while\ndeciding a review application filed by the respondents\ntherein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had\noverlooked two important documents that showed that thePage 14 of 16respondents were in possession of the sites through which\n             the appellant had sought easementary rights to access his\n             home-stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court\n             with the following observations:"3 ...It is true as observed by this Court inShivdeo\n                Singh and Others v. State of Punjab26there is\n                nothing inArticle 226of the Constitution to preclude\n                a High Court from exercising the power of review\n                which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to\n                prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and\n                pulpable errors committed by it. But, there are\n                definitive limits to the exercise of the power of\n                review. The power of review may be exercised on\n                the discovery of new and important matter or\n                evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence\n                was not within the knowledge of the person seeking\n                the review or could not be produced by him at the\n                time when the order was made; it may be exercised\n                where some mistake or error apparent on the face of\n                the record is found; it may also be exercised on any\n                analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on\n                the ground that the decision was erroneous on\n                merits. That would be the province of a court of\n                appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with\n                appellate power which may enable an appellate\n                court to correct all manner of errors committed by\n                the subordinate court." (emphasis added)"13.     Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Sahu (Dead) through Lrs.&others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Others11has also\n\n        considered the exercise of power and ambit of scope of review\n\n        and held at paragraph 30, 34 & 35 as under:-"30. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act\n             of looking, offer something again with a view to correction\n             or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the\n             creation of a statute.In the case ofPatel Narshi Thakershi\n             vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844, this\n             Court has held that the power of review is not an inherent\n             power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by\n             necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in\n             disguise.34. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper\n             for this Court to discuss the object and ambit ofSection\n             114CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review\n             when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a\n             decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is\n11 Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 (Decided on 03.11.2020)Page 15 of 16allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no\nprovision for appeal against an order and decree, may\napply for review of the decree or order as the case may be\nin the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From\nthe bare reading ofSection 114CPC, it appears that the\nsaid substantive power of review underSection 114CPC\nhas not laid down any condition as the condition precedent\nin exercise of power of review nor the said Section\nimposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its\npower to review its decision. However, an order can be\nreviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds\nmentioned inOrder 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been\nelaborately discussed hereinabove. An application for\nreview is more restricted than that of an appeal and the\nCourt of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite\nlimit mentioned inOrder 47 Rule 1 CPCitself. The powers\nof review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor\ncan an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of\npower of review.35. Considered in the light of the aforesaid settled position,\nwe find that the High Court has clearly overstepped the\njurisdiction vested in the Court underOrder 47 Rule 1\nCPC. No ground as envisaged underOrder 47 Rule 1\nCPChas been made out for the purpose of reviewing the\nobservations made in para 20. It is required to be noted\nand as evident from para 20, the High Court made\nobservations in para 20 with respect to possession of the\nplaintiffs on appreciation of evidence on record more\nparticularly the deposition of the plaintiff (PW1) and his\nwitness PW2 and on appreciation of the evidence, the\nHigh Court found that the plaintiff is in actual possession of\nthe said house. Therefore, when the observation with\nrespect to the possession of the plaintiff were made on\nappreciation of evidence/material on record, it cannot be\nsaid that there was an error apparent on the face of\nproceedings which were required to be reviewed in\nexercise of powers underOrder 47 Rule 1 CPC. At this\nstage, it is required to be noted that even High Court while\nmaking observations in para 20 with respect to plaintiff in\npossession also took note of the fact that the defendant\nnos.1 and 2 - respondents herein themselves filed an\napplication being I.A. No.1267 of 2012 which was filed\nunderSection 151CPC for getting the possession of the\ndisputed house from the appellants and the said\napplication was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the\nHigh Court took note of the fact that even according to the\ndefendant nos. 1 & 2 the appellants were in possession of\nthe disputed house. Therefore, in light of the fact situation,\nthe High Court has clearly erred in deleting para 20 in\nexercise of powers underOrder 47 Rule 1 CPCmore\nparticularly in the light of the settled preposition of lawlaidPage 16 of 16down bythis Court in the aforesaid decisions."14.   The judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is\n\n             not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present\n\n             case as the grounds which have been agitated by respondent\n\n             No. 1 are new grounds which were never raised when the\n\n             original order dated 22.07.2008 was passed and in the review\n\n             application also they have raised these grounds in the\n\n             submissions made before this Court, which cannot be good\n\n             ground for review of the order by the Board of Revenue,\n\n             therefore, the learned Board of Revenue has committed illegality\n\n             in reviewing its own order, as such, the order dated 09.10.2009\n\n             (Annexure P/10) passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to\n\n             be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.15.   However, liberty is granted to respondent No. 1 who was\n\n             applicant before the review proceeding, to exhaust appropriate\n\n             remedy available to him under the law.16.   Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid\n\n             liberty granted in favour of respondent No. 1.Sd/-(Narendra Kumar Vyas)\n                                                             Judge\n\n\nArun