NARESH GULATI,J - (1.) THIS is a review application under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 filed by the respondent No. 1 Rattan Singh for reviewing the order dated 20.8.2007 passed by me in ROR 208 of 2006-2007 whereby two appeals and one revision petition against a single order passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak were accepted.
(2.) I have heard the arguments of both the parties and written arguments have also been submitted. In his arguments the Counsel for Mahavir Singh submitted the following broad principles to be kept in view for deciding review matters :- (i) The scope of review is limited and confined only to the correction of errors which are apparent on the face of the record of the case and which strikes one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may be conceivably two opinions. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) Review cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, revision or writ petition and no Revenue Officer can review his orders on merits as review is not rehearing of the matter. An order cannot be reviewed on the ground that the same is erroneous on merits and that on re-appreciation of the material on record, a view different from the one already taken while passing the order, can possibly be taken. (iii) Re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in review proceedings and the error sought to be rectified by way of review must be evident on the face of the record. (iv) A wrong view of law taken by the authority passing the order under review cannot be a ground for reviewing the order. (v) The pleas and contentions already raised, considered and adjudicated upon cannot be re-agitated before the Review Court. (vi) No new case can be set up at the stage of review and the exercise of power of review has to be confined to the case already set up prior to the stage of review. New material can be considered only if the same was not in the knowledge of the applicant and which could not be produced despite the exercise of due diligence. (vii) Powers of review are to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases and only for the limited purpose of correcting only the errors apparent on the face of the record and in order to mitigate grave injustice done to the applicant in the process of passing the order under review. The Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 provides for remedy of review but does not specify the grounds on which an order can be reviewed and Section 15 has, therefore, to be read with the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He cited Surjit Singh v. Budh Singh, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 565 (FCP), paras 5, 7 and 8 to support his contention. On the scope of review he cited Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 458 (SC), Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhary, 1995(2) RRR 440 : AIR 1995 SC 455, Ved Pal v. State of Haryana, 2007(2) RCR(Civil) 211 (DB), Seven Seas Educational Society v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 221 (DB), Mohd. Usaf v. Abdul Majid Khan, 1970 PLJ 43 (FC), 1956 LLT 26 (FC). He further submitted that the order cannot be reviewed on merits as per citation AIR 1986 Cal. 111 (SB) and Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 511 (SC). He also submitted citation Balwant Singh v. Sodhi Lal Singh, 1966 PLJ 76 (DB) and Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 509 : 1997(2) PLJ 281 regarding wrong view of law is no ground for review.
(3.) THE Counsel also submitted that all the contentions raised in the Review Application have already been considered and adjudicated by the Court and the order dated 20.8.2007 of this Court cannot be reviewed on merits. No error has been pointed out in the order which can be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. Further, Mahavir Singh is far ahead in the race on merits therefore the review deserves dismissal with costs.;