Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan Housing Board vs Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 70/2025
Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur through its
Commissioner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ajay Singh S/o Late Shri Daulat Ram, R/o Kheme Ka
Kuan, Jodhpur.
2. Smt. Kamla W/o Late Shri Daulat Ram, R/o Kheme Ka
Kuan, Jodhpur.
3. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 96/2025
Rajasthan Housing Board, through Resident Engineer, Division-I,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur through
its Commissioner.
2. Ajay Singh S/o Late Shri Daulat Ram, Resident of Kheme
Ka Kua, Jodhpur.
3. Smt. Kamla W/o Late Shri Daulat Ram, Resident of
Kheme Ka Kua, Jodhpur.
4. Tehsildar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
----Respondents
For Rajasthan Housing Board: Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mool Singh Panwar
For Jodhpur Municipal Corporation: Mr. Suresh Charan
For Private Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Hemant Ballani
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (2 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] Order 27/01/2026 These Review Petitions have been filed by the petitioners one by Rajasthan Housing Board and another by Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) seeking review of the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.642/2024:
Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) vs. Ajay Singh & Ors., whereby the Special Appeal preferred by Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) challenging the dismissal order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1643/2024, was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Succinctly stated, facts of the present case are that Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the review petition filed by the respondent No.1 & 2 (in review petition no.70/2025) under section 85-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act of 1956") was allowed and the khatedari rights pertaining to khasra No.751/33 (new khasra No.860/751) were restored in their favour.
The dispute involved in the present case relates to khasra No.751/33 admeasuring 12.18 bighas, which was originally recorded in the name of Shiv Ji S/o Har Ji. The khatedari rights of the aforesaid land were declared in favour of Shiv Ji S/o Har Ji by the S.D.O. vide order dated 28.11.1956, whereafter in Parcha Lagan and revenue records, the name of Shiv Ji was recorded as (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (3 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] khatedar. The khatedari rights were subsequently transferred to Daulat Ram S/o Shiv Ji. The private respondents in the present litigation, namely Ajay Singh and Kamla, are legal heirs of Daulat Ram.
The dispute arose when the District Collector, Jodhpur vide administrative order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 declared various khasras including khasra No.751 as 'Siway Chak' (land reserved for public service purposes). The order of the District Collector dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 was challenged in a series of proceedings by the respective khatedars before Revenue Courts. The Revenue Courts, while passing orders in favour of khatedars, declared the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 to be illegal, and without jurisdiction, and directed restoration of khatedari rights in favour of the original land owners. Such orders of the Revenue Courts were upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
According to the private respondents, they neither had no knowledge or ocassion to know about the administrative order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur, as they were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in question. It was only when the State Government vide order dated 10.07.2015 allotted the said piece of land to the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) and the authorities of the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) started to interfere in their possession, they had to file revision petition under Section 83-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 seeking quashing of the administrative order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970, whereby an (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (4 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] order for allotment of land was issued in favour of the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South).
The revision petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister vide order dated 30/07/2019; however, the review petition filed under Section 85-A of the Act, 1956 came to be allowed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister vide order dated 17/08/2021, keeping in view the fact that the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur declaring various khasras as Siway Chak had already been set aside by the Revenue Courts in numerious proceedings. Consequently, the revenue authorities confirmed possession of the private respondents on the land and mutated the land and demarcated it in the revenue records.
The order passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 85-A of the Act, 1956 came to be challenged by the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), before the learned Single Judge by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1643/2024. However, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.05.2024 dismissed the said writ petition. A perusal of the order dated 01.05.2025 reveals that during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) restricted his arguments only to the extent of delay in approaching the revenue authorities by the private respondents i.e. Ajay Singh and Kamla. In other words, on merits, no arguments were raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), and rather he admitted that the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 had already (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (5 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] been set aside in numerous proceedings initiated by khatedars of khasra No.751 before the Revenue Courts and that the orders of the Revenue Courts had already been upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The relevant portion of the order dated 01.05.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is noted to be rejected only on the ground that since similarly situated persons have been extended the relief prayed for and the order under question has been set aside by this Court and has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the petitioner-Department is under an obligation to extend the same relief to all the similarly situated persons and, therefore, the delay caused in the matter will not be fatal to the relief granted to the private-respondents.
5. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Jodhpur Development Authority V/s Mangilal & Ors. decided on 25.05.2023.
6. The stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly."
The Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1643/2024 vide order dated 01.05.2024, preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.642/2024 before this Court.
It is relevant to mention here that on 19.07.2024, when the special appeal was heard finally, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) again restricted his arguments only to the extent of delay caused on the part of the private respondents in approaching the concerned revenue authorities against the administrative order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, dismissed the special (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (6 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] appeal filed on behalf of the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), vide order dated 19.07.2024.
The relevant portion of the order dated 19.07.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"12. It is admitted that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are similarly situated khatedars at par with the writ petitioners in whose favour the khatedari rights over the land in question were restored and the order dated 28.5.1970 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur was set aside by the Revenue Courts and affirmed by the High Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It is also not in dispute that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were in peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the land in question.
13. No material whatsoever has been placed on record to indicate that the delay occasioned in approaching the Revenue Courts was deliberate or intentional. We are of the view that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Bench ought to have interfered with the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by learned Revenue Minister is not tenable more so when the controversy pertaining to land situated at Khasra No.751 had been settled by this Court in the case of Mangi Lal (supra).
14. In wake of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.
15. Accordingly, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. 16. No order as to costs."
Arguments advanced by both the parties in D.B. Writ Review Application No.70/2025 filed on behalf of Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur:
Shir Suresh Charan, learned counsel representing review petitioner, the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), vehemently contented that the original khatedar of the land in question, Shiv Ji had already sold the land to one Ram Lal Prajapat, whereafter mutation No.54 was sanctioned on 02.08.1965 and new khasra No.834/751 was allotted in favour of the subsequent purchaser. Thus, successors in title had no right to seek regularization of land in thier favour. The learned counsel further urged that, the Hon'ble Revenue Minister had no power to cancel the land allotted to the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) by the State Government (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (7 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] by its order dated 02.12.2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the orders of restoring khatedari rights in favour of private respondents passed by the revenue authorities are ex-facie illegal. Learned counsel thus prayed that in view of the above submissions the order dated 19.07.2024 deserves to be reviewed.
Per contra, Shri Vikas Balia learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Hemant Ballani vehemently opposed the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and submitted that, the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge as well as this Court under review clearly indicate that no argument whatsoever on the merits of the case was raised by the then counsel appearing on behalf of the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South). Learned counsel further contended that the concession made by the then learned counsel representing the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) before the learned Single Judge and this Court, is apparent to the effect that the controversy is squarely covered and stands settled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel also submitted that the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the private respondents over the land in dispute was also not questioned.
Learned counsel further added that, the sale deed of 1965 between the predecessor in title and Ram Lal Prajapat is a transaction inter-se between two private parties, and a third party namely the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), which claims allotment of land subsequently in the year 1970, cannot shield its title with reference to the transactions between two parties. Even otherwise, the said issue was neither agitated before the learned (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (8 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] Single Judge nor the Division Bench and, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the present review petition.
Learned counsel also submitted that the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) is claiming its right through the order dated 10.07.2015 of the State Government, which was passed under the strength of the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970. Once the aforesaid order has been held to be bad in the eyes of law, the subsequent entries made on the basis of the said order cannot survive. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the powers of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister to review the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 cannot be questioned by the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) in the garb of the subsequent order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the State Government allotting land in their favour.
On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the review petition filed by Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South).
Arguments advanced by both the parties in D.B. Writ Review Application No.96/2025 filed on behalf of Rajasthan Housing Board:
Shri G.R.Punia, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Mool Singh Panwar representing the review petitioner Rajasthan Housing Board submitted that a notification under Section 4(1) dated 23.05.1983 was issued for acquisition of 500 bighas of land including the land in question, and the said land was acquired in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board after following due process (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (9 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] of law and the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. However, the factum of acquisition of the subject land and physical possession being taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board was deliberately concealed by the private respondents before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, learned Single Judge as well as before this Court. It was further urged that Rajasthan Housing Board was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings intentionally, though its rights stood affected by the aforesaid proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the orders passed at various stages without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Rajasthan Housing Board are bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel thus prayed that the order dated 19.07.2024 needs to be reviewed by this Court.
Per Contra, Shri Vikas Balia learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Hemant Ballani stoutly opposed the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and submitted that, for the last 35 years, the Rajasthan Housing Board has not taken any action pursuant to the acquisition of the land in question. It was further submitted that, no documents indicating payment of compensation to the claimants or possession of the land in question having been taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board have been annexed with the review petition. The acquisition proceedings thus have lapsed as per the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that, the Rajasthan Housing Board has wrongly claimed that it had no knowledge about the present proceedings being pending before the revenue (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (10 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] authorities as well as this Court; inasmuch as, letter/communication dated 08.05.2019 (A/18) issued to the Rajasthan Housing Board by the Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur clearly discloses the fact with regard to the pendency of the proceedings in relation to the land in question before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister which were initiated at the instance of the private respondents.
Learned counsel further submitted that ,no application before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister or before the Rajasthan High Court seeking impleadment was filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board despite having full knowledge of the ongoing proceedings between the Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur and the private respondents. As a matter of fact, instead of challenging the order of the Revenue Minister dated 17.08.2021, the Rajasthan Housing Board challenged the order of allotment of land made in favour of the Municipal Corporation by the District Collector, Jodhpur, which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.08.2025.
On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the review petition filed by Rajasthan Housing Board.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at the Bar. Section 114 of CPC, the substantive provision dealing with the ambit and scope of review, reads as follows:
"Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (11 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] Order 47 elucidates the grounds for filing a review application, which is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference "1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
This Court having carefully perused the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, finds that the Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur did not challenge the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by Hon'ble Revenue Minister in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 85-A of the Act of 1956 on merits. Rather, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the case is covered by the orders passed by this Court in other matters, wherein the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur had been set aside and affirmed upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (12 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] This Court finds that the present review petition has been filed by Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur seeking review of the order dated 19.07.2024 by engaging another advocate. In this situation, learned counsel appearing in review petition is not in a position to satisfy the Court as to how and under what circumstances, the then counsel appearing on behalf of Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur did not argue the matter on merits. Thus, this Court has a reason to believe that earlier counsel with due consent and instructions of the Municipal Council (South), Jodhpur confined his arguments before the learned Single Judge and this Court only with regard to the ground of delay on the part of private respondents in approaching the revenue authorities against the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of TN Electricity Board vs. Raju Reddiar & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 736 and Om Prakash vs. Suresh Kumar (2020) 13 SCC 188 has deprecated the practice of filing review petitions by engaging new counsels who attempt to argue the matters again on merits. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it has become, in recent times, a practice to file review petitions as a routine, that too with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at the earlier stage.
It is also to be noted that even the new counsel engaged by the Municipal Corporation was not in a position to dispute the fact that the validity of the administrative order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 had been challenged by the landholders (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (13 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] by filing separate suits/petitions before the Revenue Courts, wherein the said order was quashed and set aside in favour of the respective parties right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
This Court, in that view of the matter, is not inclined to entertain the review petition filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (South) on the basis of an alleged sale deed executed between two private individuals prior to the passing of the order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970, as the same fact was not only well within the knowledge of the review petitioner but would also require re-appreciation of facts and material available on record for reaching a different conclusion. In other words, the error pointed out in the judgment by the review petitioner has to be detected by a process of reasoning and complete re-hearing of the original matter.
In the case of Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheik Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs Union Of India reported in (1980) Supp SCC 562 observed that review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness.
In the case of Lilly Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, Hon'ble the Supreme (Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (14 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] Court was pleased to hold that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power.
In the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, Hon'ble the Supreme Court summarised the principles for exercising review jurisdiction as below:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.,. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: -
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (15 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] As far as the review petition filed on behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board is concerned, suffice it to mention here that the same has been filed primarily on the ground that they had no knowledge about the present proceedings pending before this Court, though the land in question had already been acquired by it. It is trite law that no order adverse to the interest of a party can be passed without extending it an opportunity of hearing. However, this Court, after perusal of documents available on record, finds that the Municipal Corporation vide its letter/communication dated 08.05.2019 (A/18) issued to the Rajasthan Housing Board informed it about the pendency of the review petition in relation to the subject land before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister.
The Rajasthan Housing Board, despite this, did not take any steps to seek impleadment as a party in the proceedings either pending before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister or before the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, if at all the Rajasthan Housing Board was seriously interested in the litigation, they ought to have taken prompt action at the relevant time either by seeking impleadment in the proceeding or by independently challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister. Having failed to do so, Rajasthan Housing Board cannot now be permitted to seek review of the judgment which has merely affirmed the orders passed in previous proceedings by the various authorities. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for rehearing of the matter on ipse dixit grounds.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:4778-DB] (16 of 16) [WRW-70/2025] [WRW-96/2025] This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is constrained to observe that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the impugned judgment. An error which has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its power of review. An attempt to find out error in the order by agitating new grounds cannot be permitted to be raised for review of the judgment, which does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.
In the result, these review petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merit.
All pending application(s), if any, also stands rejected. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 1 & 2 himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:05 AM) (Downloaded on 13/02/2026 at 09:11:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)