S. J. Hyder, J. - (1.) THE question canvased before this court is about the interpretation of Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' THEre is no real controversy between the parties with regard to the facts of the case just hereinafter stated. Usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to Bhanu Pratap Singh petitioner no. 1. He contested the notice, inter alia, on the ground that he was entitled to an additional two hectares of land as one of his sons Surendra Pratap Singh had attained majority. After recording evidence in the case and after hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority acceded to the said contention and accepted the case of the petitioner no. 1 that his son Surendra Pratap Singh was major and petitioner ho. 1 was entitled to an additional two hectares of land under the Act. THE State submitted to the decision of the Prescribed Authority and did not prefer an appeal. At the instance of the State Government, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the petitioner on January 21, 1977 purporting to be a notice under Section 13-A. In the notice it was, inter alia, stated that on a further investigation made by the State, it has come to light that Surendra Pratap Singh was not a major and the order granting the benefit of an additional two hectares of land to the petitioner no. 1 was erroneous and was liable to be reviewed. Bhanu Pratap Singh, petitioner no. 1, filed a reply to the said notice dated January 21, 1977. THE then Prescribed Authority, Bareilly, did not record any evidence and passed an order dated May 5, 1973 holding that Bhanu Pratap Singh was not entitled to the benefit of additional two hectares of land as his son Surendra Pratap Singh had not attained the age of majority. Bhanu Pratap Singh made an application for setting aside the said order and the application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated January 2, 1978. By means of this order, the Prescribed Authority set aside his earlier order dated May 5, 1977. THE State then moved another application through the Naib Tehsildar (Consolidation) and the said application was rejected on February 1, 1978. Undaunted by this reverse, the State moved yet another application for setting aside the order dated January 2, 1978. This application was moved on February 4, 1978. THE Prescribed Authority allowed this second application by the State by its order dated March 31, 1978 and recalled the order dated January 2, 1978. Against the order dated March 31, 1978, the State preferred an appeal under Section 13-A (2) read with Section 13 of the Act which was dismissed by the appellate court by its order dated September 14, 1979. Bhanu Pratap Singh has, therefore, filed this writ petion for quashing the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-5-1977 and 31-3-1978 and that of the appellate court dated 14-9-1979.
(2.) THE petitioner has urged a number of grounds in support of the relief sought by him. Since this writ petition succeeds on one of these grounds, it is unnecessary to traverse and consider the other averments made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the power conferred on the Prescribed Authority to review his order under Section 13-A of the Act is confined to a rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority as far back as December 31, 1974 could not be reviewed merely becuase the said order was considered to be erroneous on facts. This position has not been controverted on behalf of the State. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has urged that this writ petition should be dismissed on other ground which shall be presently noticed. Sub-section (1) of Section 13-A reads as under ;- "13-A. Re-determination of surplus land in certain cases-(1) The Prescribed Authority may, at any time, within a period of two years from the date of notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14, rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record J Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of increasing the surplus land shall be made, unless the Prescribed Authority has given notice, to the tenure-holder of its intention to do so and has given him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." Order 47 Rule 1 CPO confers power of review on a Civil Court. A Civil Court can review its judgment or order on the ground that a new and important matter of evidence has come to the knowledge of the party seeking the review which was not within his knowledge or could not be proved by him at the time when the decree was passed or orders made inspite of the exercise of due deligence. A Civil Court can also review its decree or order on account of an error apparent on the face of the record or for any sufficient reasons. On a comparison of the provisions contained in Section 13-A of the Act with those contained in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that the power of the Prescribed Authority to review his order is narrower in its ambit than the power conferred on a Civil Court. In other words, the Prescribed Authority under the Act can exercise the power of review only on the ground that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record. No other ground for review is available to the Prescribed Authority while exercising its powers under Section 13-A of the Act.
(3.) THE question then is what is the meaning which can be given to the expression "error apparent on the face of the record." It has been settled that a review is not by any means an appeal whereby any erroneous decision can be reheard and corrected. It lies only to correct a patent error. An error can be said to be patent only where without any elaborate argument, one could point to the error and say that here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and that there could reasonably be no two opinions about it. It is only when an error is of such a nature that it can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. See D. B. Industries Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372. Applying the test above laid down, there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Prescribed Authority dated December 31, 1974. May be that the said decision was erroneous on facts and a different view could be taken of the evidence by the court of appeal. However, as already stated, the State submitted to the decision of the Prescribed Authority dated December 31, 1974 and did not prefer an appeal. The supposed error in the order dated 31-12-1974 which concerned a question of fact could not, therefore, be corrected by the Prescribed Authority while exercising powers under Section 13-A.;