Dismissed¶10

Rajesh Tripathi and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others

Allahabad HC31 Mar 2026CMRAD/55/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8; Jaspreet Singh, J.; CMRAD No. 55 of 2026; review of judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 in Writ-B No.312 of 2010; scope of review; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; error apparent on the face of the record; rehearing on merits in the garb of review; Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Sale Tax Officer (1) and another, (2024) 2 SCC 362; Consolidation Officer; mutation entries; Shahzadi; Sonara; Udairaj; Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar; review dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the scope of review, the Court found that the submissions and the grounds for review are all based on facts. ¶8

Rajesh Tripathi and 3 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 in Writ-B No.312 of 2010 contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Having considered the scope of review, the Court found that the submissions and the grounds for review are all based on facts.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 had dealt with all the issues, including the relationship between Shahzadi and Sonara, the effect of the mutation order, the reasons for the findings recorded and the lack of evidence.

¶8

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the review petitioner could not point out or demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record.ratio¶9
The attempt of the review petitioner was to seek a rehearing on merits in the garb of review, which is not permissible.ratio¶9
The review petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review application (CMRAD No. 55 of 2026) by Rajesh Tripathi and 3 others seeking review of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed in Writ-B No.312 of 2010, by which their writ petition had been dismissed. Grounds urged related to the Consolidation Officer's findings that Shahzadi and Sonara were sisters of Udairaj and to unchallenged mutation entries recording their names after Udairaj's death. Citing the Apex Court's enunciation of the scope of review in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Sale Tax Officer (1) and another, (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Court held that all submissions and grounds for review were fact-based; that the impugned judgment had dealt with all issues, including the said relationship, the mutation order and the lack of evidence; that no error apparent on the face of the record had been pointed out or demonstrated; and that the application was an impermissible attempt at a rehearing on merits in the garb of review. Review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 55 of 2026

¶3

Rajesh Tripathi And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus

¶5

Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ambedkar Nagar And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kshemendra Shukla, P.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶6

Court No. - 8

¶7

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Kshemendra Shukla, learned counsel for the review petitioner.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the review petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed in Writ-B No.312 of 2010, whereby the petition preferred by the review petitioner was dismissed.

¶10

Submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer had recorded findings that Shahzadi and Sonara were sisters of Udairaj and there was no material on record which could justify the reversing of such findings.

¶11

It was further urged that after the death of Udairaj the name of Shahzadi and Sonara were recorded in the revenue records and this order of mutation was not challenged, hence in light thereof to cast a doubt over the relationship of Shahzadi and Sonara was not justified.

¶12

It was further urged that this Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has not considered this aspect of the matter and the judgement suffers from apparent errors, accordingly the judgment deserves to be review.

¶13

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

¶14

CMRAD No. 55 of 2026

¶15

¶16

At the outset, the scope of review is to be noticed and the Apex Court in this regard in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Sale Tax Officer (1) and another : (2024) 2 SCC, 362, after considering several judgments on the scope of review, crystalzed the following principles which reads as under:

¶17

"16. The gist of the aforesaid decision is that:

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

16.4 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".

¶22

16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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."

¶26

CMRAD No. 55 of 2026

¶27

¶28

Having considered the scope of review and from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, this Court finds that the submissions and the grounds for review are all based on facts. From the perusal of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2026, the Court has dealt with all the issues including the relationship between Shahzadi and Sonara, the effect of the mutation order and the reasons for finding recorded and the lack of evidence in this regard.

¶29

Learned counsel for the review petitioner could not point out or demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record. The attempt of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is to seek a rehearing on merits of the petition in the garb of the review petitioner which is clearly not permissible.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the review petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶32

May 18, 2026

¶33

ank

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Tripathi and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Tripathi and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Umesh Kumar Dwivedi vs Up-Lokayukt, U.P. Lko. and 10 Others

Momin Ansar Welfare Association Thru. Director Incharge Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Skill Development Entrepreneurship New Delhi

Ram Aasre vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Omaxe Residency I, Resident Welfare Association Thru.Secy. Himanshu Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Shahari Niyojana Anubhag Lko. and 5 Others