Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1816 - SUPREME COURTReview petition - appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original appellant, who was the writ petitioner and the review petitioner whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition and the review application - legality of main order - contention is that original appellant continued to remain in possession of the surplus land even after the Repeal Act came into force, all the ceiling proceedings against her in relation to the lands in question stood lapsed in terms of Repeal Act. Legality of main order - HELD THAT:- It is found that there is no good ground to invoke extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the appellants(legal representatives of original appellant) are permitted to question the legality of main order dated 14.03.2008 in this appeal. Whether the review order is legally sustainable or not? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the main order dated 14.03.2008, we find that the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner (original appellant herein) failed to prove her possession over the land in question on the date of repeal. It was held that the State had taken possession of the land in the year 1982 as per the panchnama prepared by the State - In review, the High Court held that while recording the aforementioned finding in the main order, no apparent error, whether on facts or law within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, was committed attracting the rigor of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case. Once the finding was recorded by the High Court in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (original appellant) failed to prove her actual possession on the land in question on the date of repeal, such finding could not have been examined de novo in review jurisdiction by the same Court like an Appellate Court on the facts and evidence. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
|