Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a review order passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing a review application filed by the original appellant, Asharfi Devi (since deceased, represented by legal representatives). The original appellant was the owner of certain lands that were subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The ceiling proceedings resulted in declaring some lands as surplus, and the State claimed to have taken possession of the surplus land in 1982. The Ceiling Act was repealed for the State of Uttar Pradesh on 22.03.1999. In 2002, the original appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, contending that since she continued to remain in possession of the surplus land even after the Repeal Act came into force, all ceiling proceedings stood lapsed under the Repeal Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 14.03.2008, holding that the appellant failed to prove her possession over the land on the date of repeal, as the State had taken possession in 1982 as per the panchnama. The appellant filed a review application, which was dismissed on 16.12.2008. The appellant then filed the present appeal by special leave, challenging only the review order, not the main order. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was right in dismissing the review application. The Court noted that the appellant did not challenge the main order dated 14.03.2008 in a separate SLP or in this appeal, and therefore, the Court could not examine the legality of the main order. The Court also rejected the appellant's request to invoke Article 142 to permit challenge to the main order, as no reason was given for the delay of almost 11 years. On the merits of the review order, the Court held that the High Court correctly applied Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which requires an error apparent on the face of the record for review. The finding that the appellant failed to prove possession was a factual finding that could not be re-examined de novo in review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The Supreme Court held that every error, whether factual or legal, cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; the error must be apparent on the face of the record. The Court cannot examine the main order de novo in review jurisdiction like an appellate court. (Paras 21, 27) B) Urban Land Ceiling - Repeal Act - Possession - The High Court had dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant failed to prove her possession over the land on the date of repeal, as the State had taken possession in 1982. The Supreme Court upheld the review order, finding no error apparent on record. (Paras 19, 20, 26)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the review application holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the main order within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly dismissed the review application as there was no error apparent on the face of the main order within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Court also declined to invoke Article 142 to permit challenge to the main order.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction limited to errors apparent on face of record
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976
- Possession as a question of fact
