UMA MUKERJI Vs. BORD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan for the respondents.

(2.) I have also gone through carefully the grounds for review as mentioned in the Review Application No.48501 of 2020, the review petitioner has not made out any ground to show error apparent on the face of the record. All the grounds that have been taken by the review petitioner require detailed hearing and arguments and in some and substance seek to plead before this Court thatthe judgments of the Supreme Court have been wrongly appreciated. The provisions of Urban land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, and Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999, have been wrongly appreciated and the settled principles for interpretation of State Act purportedly in conflict with the Act of Parliament have not been correctly appreciated by this Court in its judgment and order dtd. 30/7/2020.

(3.) All the grounds in the review petition are such as not covered is under limited jurisdiction open for this Court under Order 47 of the CPC which has been made applicable by the Supreme Court by its various judgments on review applications seeking review of judgments passed in writ jurisdiction also. The petitioner has tried to argue the matter afresh. This Court cannot sit in Appeal over its own judgment. If any provision of law has been incorrectly appreciated by this Court then the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the Competent Court in Appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 30/7/2020.