Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Review has been preferred for review of the judgment and order delivered by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1390 of 2014 dated 20th April, 2015.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petitioner is claiming the use of land in question which is plot No. 124, Khata No. 106, P.S. No. 28 of Mouza - Masmano, P.S. - Mandar (now Chanho) admeasuring approximately 7.56 acres. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this land in question is used by this petitioner which is a Committee constituted by the members for Imambara, Graveyard and Muharram and, therefore, the Government cannot utilize the same for any other purposes. This is the major case raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel has taken this Court to various annexures of this Civil Review application. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all which was preferred by this petitioner. It is absolutely a land dispute between the private persons on the one hand and, the government on another hand. Moreover, ownership and use of the property in question is also in dispute. This Court will be extremely slow in entertaining directly the writ petitions for land disputes and will never interfere, especially in a Public Interest Litigation. Moreover, as stated in the order dated 20th April, 2015, out of those land admeasuring 7.56 acres, approximately 1.0 acres of the land has been demarcated as 'Karbala'. Similarly, approximately 1.21 acres of land has been used for internal road and the remaining 5.29 acres of land is being utilised for construction of Nursing College -cum -Hostel under Multi Sectoral Development Programme Scheme in the public interest and the building of college and hostels is going on which is on the verge of completion. In view of this fact, we seen no reason to review our order dated 20th April, 2015 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 1390 of 2014.
(3.) IT has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma, reported in : (1979) 4 SCC 389, at Para No. 3 as under: "3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A -1 and A -3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948 -49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." (Emphasis supplied);