Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shambhudayal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13507
1 RP-612-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 612 of 2026
SHAMBHUDAYAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agrawal - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
The present review petition has been preferred by the review petitioner
seeking review of the order dated 24/02/2026 passed in Writ Appeal
No.274/2026 by this Court whereby Writ Appeal preferred by the petitioner
was dismissed.
2. Prime arguments of the review petitioner (appellant in writ appeal)
is that on the date of hearing, counsel Shri Vishan Singh Kushwaha appeared
on behalf of Shri Kapil Singhal only to make a limited prayer for
adjournment on the ground that Shri Vineet Saxena, arguing counsel was on
adjustment. It is further submitted on merits that demand of enhanced
premium and land revenue was made without jurisdiction, without a quasi
judicial order and in violation of natural justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/28/2026
10:53:29 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13507
2 RP-612-2026
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer and
submits that even if the order is taken on merits even then, no case for
interference is made out. In fact, writ appeal was barred by 197 days and
considering the contents of the application, delay was condoned and matter
was taken for consideration on merits. Even otherwise, land of petitioner was
diverted in year 2017 and 2018 when Section 59 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code was amended vide notification dated 28/09/2018, then land revenue
was charged as per the amended provisions. If any irregularity is being
committed in the order dated 28/07/2017, then the same ought to have been
challenged by the appellant. In absence thereof, no case for interference is
made out.
4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
appended thereto.
5. In the case in hand, review petitioner has not challenged order dated
28/07/2017 regarding diversion of land. Accordingly, land of petitioner is
converted into residential/ commercial purpose. Therefore, order dated
28/07/2017 attained finality.
6 . So far as scope of review is concerned, in the case of Kamlesh
Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 , principles relating to
review jurisdiction have been laid down. The principles relating to review
jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:
When the review will be maintainable:
“(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not withinSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/28/2026
10:53:29 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:135073 RP-612-2026
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” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki,
(1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in the case of
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean “a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”.
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 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 reheard 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/28/2026
10:53:29 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13507
4 RP-612-2026
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the 4 domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
7. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which
is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous
view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the
category of the appeal.
8. This is a case where review petitioner is seeking review of the order
dated 24th February, 2026 passed by Writ Appellate Court on the ground
that since arguing counsel for the petitioner was on adjustment on the date of
hearing therefore, on his behalf proxy counsel appeared before the Court
only to seek adjournment, but from perusal of the record as well as order of
the Writ Appellate Court, it appears that competent Authority i.e. Sub
Divisional Officer had passed the order dated 28/07/2017 regarding diversion
of land and accordingly land of the petitioner was converted from residential
to commercial purpose, but petitioner has never challenged the said order,
therefore, the same attained finality and in pursuance to the said order,
petitioner accepted the very demand and paid Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore,
nothing remained to be argued at the hands of petitioner.
9 . Petitioner could not raise another ground in review petition which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/28/2026
10:53:29 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13507
5 RP-612-2026
could have been missed by the Writ Appellate Court. In absence of any
merits in arguments so far as review is concerned, no error is apparent on the
face of record to interfere in review jurisdiction. The Writ Appellate Court
after considering the necessary factual facets of the case, passed the
impugned order, which needs not to be interfered with.
10. Cumulatively, no case for interference is made out. Review
petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
VC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/28/2026
10:53:29 AM
[ad_1]
Source link
