BHANU PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question canvased before this court is about the interpretation of Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' THEre is no real controversy between the parties with regard to the facts of the case just hereinafter stated. Usual notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to Bhanu Pratap Singh petitioner no. 1. He contested the notice, inter alia, on the ground that he was entitled to an additional two hectares of land as one of his sons Surendra Pratap Singh had attained majority. After recording evidence in the case and after hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority acceded to the said contention and accepted the case of the petitioner no. 1 that his son Surendra Pratap Singh was major and petitioner ho. 1 was entitled to an additional two hectares of land under the Act. THE State submitted to the decision of the Prescribed Authority and did not prefer an appeal. At the instance of the State Government, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the petitioner on January 21, 1977 purporting to be a notice under Section 13-A. In the notice it was, inter alia, stated that on a further investigation made by the State, it has come to light that Surendra Pratap Singh was not a major and the order granting the benefit of an additional two hectares of land to the petitioner no. 1 was erroneous and was liable to be reviewed. Bhanu Pratap Singh, petitioner no. 1, filed a reply to the said notice dated January 21, 1977. THE then Prescribed Authority, Bareilly, did not record any evidence and passed an order dated May 5, 1973 holding that Bhanu Pratap Singh was not entitled to the benefit of additional two hectares of land as his son Surendra Pratap Singh had not attained the age of majority. Bhanu Pratap Singh made an application for setting aside the said order and the application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated January 2, 1978. By means of this order, the Prescribed Authority set aside his earlier order dated May 5, 1977. THE State then moved another application through the Naib Tehsildar (Consolidation) and the said application was rejected on February 1, 1978. Undaunted by this reverse, the State moved yet another application for setting aside the order dated January 2, 1978. This application was moved on February 4, 1978. THE Prescribed Authority allowed this second application by the State by its order dated March 31, 1978 and recalled the order dated January 2, 1978. Against the order dated March 31, 1978, the State preferred an appeal under Section 13-A (2) read with Section 13 of the Act which was dismissed by the appellate court by its order dated September 14, 1979. Bhanu Pratap Singh has, therefore, filed this writ petion for quashing the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-5-1977 and 31-3-1978 and that of the appellate court dated 14-9-1979.

(2.) THE petitioner has urged a number of grounds in support of the relief sought by him. Since this writ petition succeeds on one of these grounds, it is unnecessary to traverse and consider the other averments made on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) THE question then is what is the meaning which can be given to the expression "error apparent on the face of the record." It has been settled that a review is not by any means an appeal whereby any erroneous decision can be reheard and corrected. It lies only to correct a patent error. An error can be said to be patent only where without any elaborate argument, one could point to the error and say that here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and that there could reasonably be no two opinions about it. It is only when an error is of such a nature that it can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. See D. B. Industries Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372.