ASHU AND 75 OTHERSversusGAON SABHA AND ANOTHER

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 200 of 2026

Ashu and 75 others
                                                          …..Applicant(s)

                                Versus

Gaon Sabha and another
                                                     …..Opposite Party(s)


Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Rohit Nandan Pandey, Satendra
                                    Kumar Singh, Satya Prakash Rai,
                                    Suresh Chandra Varma, Yogesh
                                    Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
                                    Sunil Kumar Singh


                                                   Reserved on 8.9.2026
                                                 Delivered on 14.9.2026.

Court No. - 36

               HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2026.

1. Heard.

2. Allowed.

3. Delay in filing the review application is condoned.

Order on Review Petition.

1. The judgment under review was challenged by one set of aggrieved
persons by way of filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s)
8825/2025, which was dismissed vide an order dated 15.4.2025,
assigning reasons. For reference, said order in its entirety is reproduced
hereinafter:
                                     2
                                                   CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

  “ 1. Application for deletion of respondent nos.5 to 126 is allowed.
  Cause title be amended accordingly.
  2. Delay condoned.
  3. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners at a
  considerable length. On perusal of the orders passed by Sub-
  Divisional Officer, the then Collector, as well as by the High Court,
  we are satisfied that the allotment of subject-plots was a fraudulent
  exercise of power by the then Gram Panchayat, which was rightly
  annulled by the Authorities. That apart, no legal right can be said to
  have vested in the petitioners, as the possession of allotted plots was
  admittedly not handed to them at any point of time.
  4. For the reasons aforestated, this special leave petition is dismissed.
  5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”


2. The review applicants before this Court have also challenged the
judgment under review in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).
11332/2025 wherein following order was passed on 23.9.2025:
        “1. Though the identical matter has already been dismissed by
     this Court by way of a reasoned order dated 15.04.2025 passed in
     Diary No.8825/2025, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
     seeks and are permitted to withdraw these petitions as they want to
     move an appropriate application before the High Court. Ordered
     accordingly.

     2. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as
     withdrawn.”

3. In pursuance of aforesaid order, present review application is being
filed. Relevant part of judgment under review is reproduced hereinafter:
      “13. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
      14. In the present case, on basis of above referred facts, it is not
      under dispute that land in question was recorded as pasture land in
      Revenue Record as well as that on basis of resolution adopted, till
      date land has not been handed over to its beneficiaries i.e.
      contesting respondents.
                                3
                                            CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

15. A land which is reserved for pasture land and its nature cannot
be changed except in extraordinary circumstances, which does not
reflect from the proceedings in question and material on record.


16. The Supreme Court in case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Pakhur
Pakur Jagran Manch and others, 2011 (2) SCC 591, in similar
circumstances has held that:-


   “15. Regulation 10 empowers the State Government to appoint
   the officers by whom the settlement is to be made and make
   rules for the procedure of such officers in the investigation into
   rights in the land and hearing of suits, and generally for the
   guidance of such officers.
   23. We should however note that such dereservation of any
   government land reserved as gochar, should only be in
   exceptional circumstances and for valid reasons, having regard
   to the importance of gochar in every village. Any attempt by
   either the villagers or others to encroach upon or illegally
   convert the gochar to house plots or other non-grazing use
   should be resisted and firmly dealt with. Any requirement of
   land for any public purpose should be met from available waste
   or unutilised land in the village and not gochar.
   24. Whenever it becomes inevitable or necessary to dereserve
   any gochar for any public purpose (which as stated above
   should be as a last resort), the following procedure
   contemplated in Regulations 24 and 25 and Section 38(2)
   should be strictly followed:


      (a) The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner shall prepare a
      note/report giving the reasons why the gochar had been
      identified for any non-grazing public purpose and record the
      non-availability of other suitable land for such public
      purpose. The Deputy Commissioner shall send the said
                             4
                                            CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

      proposal for dereservation to the State Government for its
      previous sanction.
      (b) The State Government should consider the request for
      sanction keeping in view the object of gochar and the need
      for maintaining a minimum of five per cent of village area
      as gochar, and call for suggestions/objections from the
      villagers before granting sanction.
      (c) If the State Government grants the sanction, the Deputy
      Commissioner     should    proceed    to   make   an   order
      dereserving, the gochar by making appropriate entries in the
      record-of-rights and reclassifying the same for the purpose
      for which it was dereserved.
      (d) Whenever the gochar in a village is dereserved and
      diverted to non-grazing use, simultaneously or at least
      immediately thereafter the State should make available
      alternative land as gochar, in a manner and to an extent that
      the gochar continues to be not less than 5% of the total
      extent of the village as provided under Section 38(2) of the
      Tenancy Act.”
      17. As referred above a pasture land cannot be converted for
      granting patta except in exceptional circumstances or
      inevitable conditions or it becomes necessary, however,
      none of such contingency is reflected from records and it
      appears that in a very general manner, the land referred as
      pasture land was dereserved for the purpose of allotment of
      patta without any exceptional circumstances or inevitable
      condition.


18. In the aforesaid circumstances, nature of proceedings that even
Monadikarta has disputed about Munnadi as well as S.D.M. has
approved the proposal in three dates itself reflects that requisite
application of mind for de reservation of land reserved for pasture
was not followed as well as due procedure was also not followed.
                                    5
                                                     CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

      19. Accordingly, the Court is of considered opinion that procedure
      followed for change of nature of pasture land was absolutely
      illegal as well as that since the land was not handed over to its
      beneficiaries, therefore, no prejudice could be caused to contesting
      respondents. Accordingly, entire proceeding of allotment and
      changing the nature of land as well as impugned order dated
      09.06.2003 passed by Board of Revenue are set aside and it is
      observed that this order will not come in the way if State or Gram
      Sabha proceed for allotment of land (other than public utility land)
      or change of nature of land under due procedure to landless
      persons including contesting respondents, in accordance with law.
      20. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
      observation.”


4. Sri Satya Prakash Rai, learned counsel for review applicants
submitted that they are not disputing the judgment under review so far as
pasture land is concerned that it cannot be given on lease, however, their
case is that land on which review applicants were granted Patta was a
Usar/Barren land where there is no bar, which requires change of user
and since such distinction was not considered, when the judgment under
review was passed, therefore review application be allowed and matter
of all review applicants be heard separately on this point. Review
applicants have also claimed that some of the applicants have been
granted possession on basis of allotment of lease.


5. Per Contra, Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents has supported the judgment under review and submitted that
classification made by review applicants is baseless. The judgment under
review has not only dealt with pasture land but, it has dealt with process
of allotment of all Patta, which was found defective, therefore, no case
of review is made out.
                                     6
                                                     CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

6. Law in regard to scope of review was reiterated by Supreme Court in
the cases of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and
another, 2023 INSC 963, Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna and another, 2025
INSC 1080 as well as State of West Bengal and others vs. Jai Hind
Private Limited, (2026) 5 SCC 481 and for reference, relevant part of
said judgments are quoted below :-


Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra)


      “16.The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
      16.1 A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or
      an error apparent on the face of the record.
      16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure
      from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a
      substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
      16.3. 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of
      review.
      16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it
      is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and
      corrected”.
      16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
      allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
      16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted
      to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been
      addressed and decided.
      16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which,
      mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require
      any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there
      may conceivably be two opinions.
                                7
                                              CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of
a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review.”


“Malleeswari (supra)


17 Having noticed the distinction between the power of review
and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review
jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or
evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite
the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their
knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the
original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be
invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must
be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. 8 (Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, 1954) 2 SCC 881 1955)
1 SCR 1104.) Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong
decision. 9 T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905 : AIR
1954 SC 440. An error which has to be established by a long-
drawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record. 10 Satyanarayan Laxminarayan
Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137.


17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a
reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified   in   the    other       two   categories.   11   Chhajju
Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11”


State of West Bengal vs. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
                                      8
                                                   CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

      “76. As regards the scope of review, it is well settled that it is of a
      limited and narrow one, unlike the case of appeal, where the
      appellate court could revisit the entire facts and could re-hear the
      complete matter on merits. On the other hand, the purpose of a
      review is to rectify manifest or exceptional wrongs. It is not for
      reappreciating facts or seeking a different conclusion. Thus, a
      review could not be an appeal in disguise by reappreciating the
      evidence and grounds which have already traversed or come to a
      conclusion.
      77. Review is essentially to strike a balance between the rule of
      finality, which is crucial for maintaining legal certainty and to
      avoid irremediable injustice caused by patent mistakes, fraud,
      failure of natural justice or similar exceptional situations, as was
      held in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. State (UT of
      Delhi) [Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. State (UT of Delhi),
      (1980) 2 SCC 167 : (1980) 45 STC 212] . It is for this reason that
      the courts have emphasised from time to time that review must be
      exercised with great caution and only when the requisite limited
      criteria are satisfied, in which the error must be evident and not
      one which requires elaborate arguments to discover.


      78. One can find the basic legal postulates of the scope of review
      in Section 114 read with Rule 1 of Order 47CPC, which are
      applied in all proceedings in which the power of review is
      exercised. Thus, only on the following grounds, a review would
      lie:
      (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
      (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
      Any other sufficient reason.”


7. Attempt of present review applicants that their case be distinguished
from other persons is a futile attempt, since it is an admitted case of all
the lease holders that there was a single process of allotment of lease and
                                                                9
                                                                              CMRAD No. - 200 of 2026

                            land was not handed over to any of the lease holders, therefore, finding
                            that process required for allotment of lease was not followed ‘Munadi’
                            was not conducted, ‘munadi karta’ has denied ‘munadi’ and that due
                            process was not followed was equally applicable in the case of present
                            review applicants.


                            8. Court finds that a classification that land allotted to the review
                            applicants was a Usar, at this stage, is vague classification which cannot
                            be considered to an extent that irregularities in process of allotment be
                            condoned within the scope review, when irregularities are not being
                            much disputed. A reference that land was handed over to predecessors of
                            some applicants is not supported by any documents, therefore, cannot be
                            relied upon.


                            9. Court does not find that it is a fit case where the present review
                            application can be allowed on law as well as on facts, accordingly this
                            review application is rejected.

                                                                      (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

                            September14, 2026
                            SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad