AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Aradhe, J.—Heard. This application has filed for review of the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 63/2008.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in long continuous possession of the land in question and therefore, the rights of the defendants in the suit land, if any, have extinguished by efflux of time. It is also submitted that initially land admeasuring 981.29 acres was acquired. However, subsequently the possession of the land admeasuring 451.92 acres was only taken.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. The Courts below have concurrently held that the applicants have failed to prove their title on the land in question. It has been held that since the applicants are in possession of the land in question, therefore, they shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
The order dated 29.07.2013 neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of record nor the same suffers from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. [See: S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, and The State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, .] For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the review petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.