AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on I.A.No. 382/2019, which is an application for condonation of delay.
On due consideration, we allow the application and condone the delay.
Accordingly, the application (I.A.No. 382/2019) is allowed. Delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned.
The present review petition is directed against the order dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11899/2017.
A PIL (W.P.No.11899/17) was filed by one Mehmood Hasan raising grievance that the present petitioner has encroached upon the Government land
situated in village Sastara, Tehsil Naurojabad, District Umariya and despite complaint, no action was taken by the Revenue Authorities. Hence, the
PIL for removal of the alleged encroachment.
This Court while disposing of the PIL held that under M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Tahsildar is competent to remove the encroachment after
following the due procedure of law.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse
possession and if he had been noticed, he would have pointed out correct facts before the Division Bench passed the order in question. Hence this
review petition.
After having heard Shri Prateek Dubey at length and going through the material placed on record, we do not find any case is made out to review the
order except to clarify that the order dated 9.8.2017 is not an order on merit against any one. The only thing said by the Court in the said order was
that the Tahsildar is competent to take action against the unauthorized occupant under Section 248 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 as per law.
It is well settled that cases are heard and decided only once. To make a departure from this salutary rule, review application must strictly fall within
the established parameters. In the light of settled principle of law, in our considered opinion, there is no merit and substance in this review application.
The scope of review is well settled. In a review, Court has very limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits. Even after elaborate
arguments, no error apparent on the face of record could be pointed out.
In view of the foregoing, we find that no case is made out for review. Accordingly, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.