V. GOPALAKRISHANAN S/O.VELAYUDHAN v. STATE OF KERALA and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/15TH JYAISHTA, 1939 RP.No. 395 of 2017 () IN WA.2428/2016 --------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 2428/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-09-2016 ## REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------- V. GOPALAKRISHANAN S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THAZHAMADATHIL (UNNIBHAVANAM), MANAKKARAM, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. ## 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM, PIN-691013. ## 3. THE TAHASILDAR KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305. 4. THE SASTHAMKOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690521. 5. T.SANKARA PILLAI PRESIDENT, SASTHAMKOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690521. ## 6. SRI.AYYAPPAN PILLAI WARD MEMBER, SASTHAMKOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (MANNOOR VEEDU), MANAKKARA, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690521. ## 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690521. R1 TO R3 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.JAYASURYA R4 BY S.C. SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------** ## **Review Petition No.395 of 2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of June, 2017** ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This review petition arises out of the judgment of this Court dated 16.01.2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 in W.P.(C)No.24568 of 2006. The petitioner filed the said writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 Government order dated 19.04.2006 in so far as it relates to the finding that the property which is in possession of the petitioner and assigned in the name of his wife Smt.Saraswathi, is included in 2.5 Acres of land in Survey No.575/1 of Sasthamcotta Village. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs including a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 communication dated 12.07.2006 of the third respondent and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to assign 5 cents of land in Survey No.575/1 of Sasthamcotta Village as per Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner. 2. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 19.09.2016 dismissed W.P.(C)No.24568 of 2006 holding that, that the Panchayat cannot initiate any proceedings against the petitioner for eviction or otherwise with respect to the land, R.P.No.395 of 2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 2 by reason of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and the decision of the Government; but, however, reserving the right of the Government to take such proceedings subject, however, to the contentions taken up by the petitioner before the authorities. The learned Single Judge held further that, the claim of beneficial enjoyment cannot be sustained on the application of the petitioner since the earlier assignment of 2 cents is in his wife's name. The family of the petitioner having been assigned a land there can be no further assignment claimed under the Kerala Land Assignment Act of 1960 and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 on the basis of an encroachment made of properties adjacent to that assigned. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the learned Single Judge read thus; “10. In the above circumstances, if at all any proceedings for eviction is to be taken, it has to be taken by the Government and not by the Panchayat. The Government having not taken any proceedings as of now it would be proper for this Court not to observe anything on the merits of the matter. As of now, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Exhibit P9 order insofar as the 4 cents said to be in the possession of the petitioner having been found to be within the market puramboke, which is said to be in the possession of the Panchayat and, in any event, is a revenue puramboke. Considerable persuasion is afforded to the said view by the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor based on the direction issued by this Court. However, if any eviction proceedings are to be R.P.No.395 of 2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 3 taken, necessarily the same should be on the basis of proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act; which the petitioner could challenge in appropriate proceedings. Though the sketch now produced would not be relevant in the proceedings if any taken under the Land Conservancy Act; it affords sufficient cause to decline invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with Ext.P9 order. The claim of beneficial enjoyment cannot be sustained on the application of the petitioner since the earlier assignment of 2 cents is in his wife's name. The family of the petitioner having been assigned a land there can be no further assignment claimed under the Land Assignment Act of 1960 and the Rules of 1964 on the basis of an encroachment made of properties adjacent to that assigned. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed, clearly finding that the Panchayat cannot initiate any proceedings against the petitioner for eviction or otherwise with respect to the land, by reason of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and the decision of the Government; but, however, reserving the right of the Government to take such proceedings subject, however, to the contentions taken up by the petitioner before the authorities. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.” 3. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner filed W.A.No.2428 of 2016. The said writ appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 16.01.2017. 4. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner herein, this Court dismissed the said writ appeal holding that, since the State Government is the owner of the R.P.No.395 of 2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 4 property, it is for them to take a decision in the matter. The State Government, in their wisdom, have concluded that they do not propose to assign the 3 cents of encroached property in favour of the petitioner/appellant. In such matters, this Court cannot direct the State Government to assign the property though the State Government on merits, is unwilling to do so. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that, it is for the State Government to initiate steps, if they so choose, to take possession of the property from the petitioner/appellant, in accordance with law, more particularly, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act. Relying on the law laid down by a Division Bench in **Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government [2007 (3) KLT 702]** this Court held that, the Kerala Land Assignment Act is intended to protect landless persons by assigning to them Government land for cultivation and other purposes, and there is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land. Therefore, the provisions under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules made thereunder are not intended for enriching a person like the appellant, whose wife has already been assigned with 2 cents of Government land with road frontage. 5. Now, the petitioner is before this Court in this review petition R.P.No.395 of 2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 5 filed under XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') contending that there was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 16.01.2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016. 6. We heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. From the grounds raised in this review petition it is evident that, the petitioner is now seeking a rehearing of the matter on merits, contending that the findings of this Court in the judgment dated 16.01.2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 are erroneous. Therefore, the present Review Petition can only be treated as 'an appeal in disguise'. 8. In **Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167]** the Apex Court held that, if the view adopted by the court in the original judgment is a possible view, having regard to what the record states; it is difficult to hold that there is error apparent on the face of the record. 9. In **Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of Andra Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 1372]** the Apex Court held that, review is, by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. 10. In **Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715]** the R.P.No.395 of 2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 6 Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code reiterated that, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. Later, in **Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC 224]** the Apex Court held that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 11. In **Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC** **534]** the Apex Court held that, the review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. R.P.No.395 of 2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016 7 The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 12. In **Usha Bharti v. State of U.P. [(2014) 7 SCC 663]** the Apex Court had occasion to consider the scope and limitations of the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. After referring to the Three-Judge Bench decision in **S.Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [(1993) Supp.4 SCC 595]** and the subsequent decisions in **Green View Tea and Industries v. Collector [(2004) 4 SCC 122]** , etc. the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of review, the Apex Court or High Court can reopen the case and rehear the entire matter. But, whilst exercising such power, the Court cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code as well as the rules framed by the High Courts and the Apex Court and that the limits within which the Courts can exercise the powers of review have been well settled in a catena of judgments. 13. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, none of the grounds raised in the Review Petition fall within the ambit and scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. Since review jurisdiction does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits, in the absence of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record pointed out in the judgment of this Court dated 16.01.2017 in W.A.No.2428 of 2016, the petitioner is not legally entitled to seek a R.P.No.395 of 2017 in 8 W.A.No.2428 of 2016 review of the said judgment, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. In the result, this review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN Judge** TKS