IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 9 of 2011 IN Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4964 of 2001. Sri Balkar Singh (since deceased) and others. … Petitioners. Vs. The Board of Revenue and others …Respondents. Smt. Amam Deep Kaur and two others. …Applicants Mr. M.C.Bansal, Advocate learned counsel for the review applicants. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent No.8. AND Review Application No. 8 of 2011 IN Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4965 of 2001. Sri Ranjit Singh and others. … Petitioners. Vs. The Board of Revenue and others …Respondents. Ranjit Singh and others. …Applicants Mr. M.C.Bansal, Advocate learned counsel for the review-applicants. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 8. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-State. Date January 6, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since both these writ petitions were dismissed vide a common judgment and order dated December 10, 2010, and as the grounds taken for review of the judgment are almost identical therefore, for the sake of convenience, the review applications, filed separately in each case, are being decided by this common order. 2 Review applications have been filed by the petitioner- applicants for review of the order dated 10-12-2010 on the ground that this Court has not appreciated the law that the plaintiff-respondents are recorded tenant in chief and as such they cannot file a suit for declaration of their rights under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (for short the Act) and no cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file a suit under Section 229-B of the Act. I have perused the instant writ petitions. There is no such pleadings in the writ petition and no such ground beyond the pleadings raised in the writ petition can be taken in the review application. Even no arguments were made on this point at the time of hearing of writ petitions. The next ground raised in the review petitions is that when the land in question is held to be custodia legis, neither any suit under Section 209 of the Act can be filed nor any decree could have been passed or executed under Section 209 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that this point has been elaborately discussed by the Board of Revenue as well as by this Court in the body of the judgment and it has been held that the suit under Section 229-B and 209 of the Act is fully maintainable. Thirdly, it has been contended that no substantial question of law has been framed by the second appellate Court, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Board of Revenue is not tenable in the eye of law. This ground has not been pleaded or argued on behalf of the petitioners before the Court. Even otherwise also, it is not tenable in view of a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Baikunth Nath Kaushik Vs. Anand Swaroop Kaushik(deceased) through L.Rs. [2006(1)U.D., 525], wherein in paragraph 7 the following observations were made:- “7. We have considered the above rival contentions. After a close scrutiny of the provisions contained in Section 331(4) 3 and 341 of U.P.Act No. 1 of 1951 and provision of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, we are of the view that while Section 341 of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, adopts all other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by reference, the provisions contained in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, incorporated by making its specific reference as to the “grounds” on which the Second Appeal would be maintainable under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Had that been not the intention of the legislature, it would not have specifically mentioned Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were made applicable under Section 341 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 to the proceedings under said Act. Otherwise also, on further amendment like repeal of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 331(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950(Act No. 1 of 1951) may lead to a situation of no meaning, for then there would be no ground on which Second Appeal under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 can be maintained. In other words, we are of the clear opinion that to the extent of “grounds” mentioned in Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it existed in the year 1951, the same stood incorporated under Section 331(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950(Act No. 1 of 1951) while all other provisions of the Code stood adopted by reference under Section 341 of U.P.Act No. 1 of 1951.” It is pertinent to mention here that the scope of review of judgment under Order 47 C.P.C. is very limited and review may be allowed on three grounds, namely:- (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made, or (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or 4 (iii) for any other sufficient reason (which has been interpreted to be analogous to the other reasons specified above). The Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Versus Kamal Sengupta and another [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 612] while considering the provisions of Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 pertaining to power of review has held in paragraph no. 22 as under:- “22. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.” Following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the grounds as taken by the review applicants may further amount sitting of this Court in appeal over its own judgment for the simple reason that this Court while dealing with the controversy involved in these writ petitions has elaborately discussed each and every aspect covered by the grounds raised in the review petitions, therefore, no good ground of review is made out in these two writ petitions. The review applications deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP