1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Review Application No. MCC/15625 of 2025 In Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014 Km. Meenakshi Agarwal and others --Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates:- Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Shaify, Advocate for review applicants. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. The intra Court appeal filed by appellants challenging judgment dated 21.02.2014, rendered in Writ Petition No. 963 of 2005 (MS), was dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 13.08.2025. 2. Appellants have sought review of the said judgment by contending that their challenge was to the determination made in para 21 and 26 of the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2014; however, in the judgment, it has come that their challenge is limited to the determination made in para 29 of the judgment. 3. In the Review Application, contentions are raised in the form of paragraphs and separate grounds of review have not been formulated. Para 3 of Review Application is extracted below: “3. That while passing the judgment in SPA no. 62/2014 the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to mention in para no. 2 and 5 of the judgment that the Senior counsel for the appellants had stressed his arguments only on para no. 29 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Single Judge. In fact it 2 was not so. The counsel for the appellants had drawn the attention of this Hon'ble Court that the findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge as mentioned in para no. 21 & 26 were not in accordance with law, while findings mentioned in para no. 29 were in favour of the appellants. Therefore there was no question to challenge the findings of para no. 29 of the judgment. Even from bare perusal of para no. 3 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench it is clearly reflected that the Senior counsel for the appellants had submitted that in view of the provisions contained in section 6-A of G.E.T.A Act not only the "ceiling area" has to be determined as per the provisions of UP Imposition Ceiling on Land holdings Act 1960 but the procedure as prescribed in the "Ceiling Act" and the rules framed thereunder has to be followed for determination, demarcation of ceiling area, separation of "surplus area" and taking of possession over "surplus area" etc. Thus it is crystal clear that the appellants had challenged the findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge as mentioned in para no. 21 & 26 of the judgment.” 4. Learned State Counsel takes strong exception to the ground on which review is sought and he submits that all the contentions raised by the review applicants were considered and discussed in the judgment and the review application is ill advised. He further submits that appellants want to reargue the matter on merits, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction. 5. Learned State Counsel refers to the grounds in the Memo of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, for submitting that none of the grounds supports the contention now raised by review applicants. He contends that appellants have taken a somersault for rehearing of the appeal on merits; therefore, review application is liable to be rejected as there is no error apparent which may warrant invocation of review power. 6. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel further submits that even if the contention raised by review applicants is taken on its face value, then also it does not have any bearing on the merits of the case as 3 learned Single Judge, in the judgment under appeal, had indicated reasons in para 21 and 26 of the judgment, while conclusion was recorded in para 29. 7. For ready reference, para 21, 26 and 29 of the judgment, rendered by learned Single Judge, challenged in intra Court appeal, are extracted below: “21. So far as the calculation of the ceiling area is concerned, the provisions of the 1960 Act (Ceiling Act) would apply, but the proceeding has to be initiated under the UP Act No. 1 of 1959, as revalidated by the UP Act No. 28 of 1970. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Advocates in this regard is misconceived. So far as the statement made by the learned Advocate General before the Allahabad High Court is concerned, that cannot be said to be having a binding effect. If a statement is made against the provisions of law, that cannot be said to be having a binding effect as it is well settled principle of law that, against law, there is no estoppels. 26. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Advocates Mr. S.P. Gupta and Mr. M.L. Verma to the effect that the proceedings would be initiated in view of Section 6-A (quoted above) under the 1960 Act, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the proceedings have to be initiated under the UP Act No. 28 of 1970, but so far as the determination of the ceiling area is concerned, the same shall be governed by the provisions of the 1960 Act. The Section is very clear. There is no ambiguity in the language. For the purpose of calculation of the ceiling area, the provisions of the 1960 Act would apply. Ceiling area, which has to be determined, has been defined in Section 3 of the UP Act No. 28 of 1970, as has been mentioned above, which says that the expression ‘ceiling area’ shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended from time to time. By a conjoined reading of Section 6-A and the definition of ‘ceiling area’, it is very much clear that the proceedings would be initiated under the UP Act No. 1 of 1959, as validated by UP Act No. 28 of 1970, and the calculation of the ceiling area would be under the provisions of the 1960 Act. 29. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which can be said to be acceptable, is that 30 acres area has been wrongly mentioned in the notice and, therefore, on this count, the notice is not valid. The impugned notice issued by the Collector, on this count only, is set aside. Writ Petition No. 962 of 2005 (MS) and Writ Petition No. 963 of 2005 (MS) are partly allowed and the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and in view of Section 6-A, quoted above, for determination of 4 the ceiling area and separation of surplus area and to take steps accordingly against those tenure holders, who were recorded at the time of determination of lease or their successors in interest” 8. This Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned State Counsel. None of the grounds raised by appellants in Memo of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, indicates that they are aggrieved by determination made in para 21 or 26 of the judgment dated 21.02.2014. 9. In paragraphs 21 and 26 of the judgment appealed against, contention raised by writ petitioners that statement made by Advocate General before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court is binding upon the State, was repelled and it was held that statement if made by learned State Counsel against law does not bind the State as there can be no estopple against law. In the same paragraph, it was further observed that Ceiling Act would apply for calculating ceiling area, and the proceedings would be initiated under G.E.T.A Act 1958 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959), as revalidated by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970. 10. In para 29 of the judgment, learned Single Judge recorded his conclusion and held that since the notice mentions 30 acres as the ceiling area, even though G.E.T.A. Act, 1958 was amended by Re-enactment and Validation Act (U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970), therefore, the notice is not valid. Learned Single Judge directed the competent authority to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and in view of Section 6-A of G.E.T.A. Act for determination of ceiling area and separation of surplus area. 5 11. It would be worth mentioning that proviso to Section 4(b) of G.E.T.A Act, 1958 prescribed the ceiling limit of 30 acres; however, by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970, Clause (b) of Section 4 was amended and proviso thereto was omitted, and a new Section, numbered as Section 6-A, was inserted, which provided that determination of ceiling area shall be as per provisions of Ceiling Act, 1960. 12. Learned State Counsel is, therefore, right in submitting that the same thread passes through the aforementioned three paragraphs of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge and para 29 of the said judgment culminates the discussion made in paragraph No. 21 & 26. 13. Learned State Counsel took us to ground ‘G’ raised by appellants in the Memo of their Appeal, where appellants claimed benefit of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Rules, 1960. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel that appellants cannot blow hot and cold at the same time and they cannot seek benefit of Rules framed under G.E.T.A. Act and then contend that the rules framed under Ceiling Act alone, would be applicable. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicants concedes that the only question which fell for consideration in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014 was whether the entire proceedings have to be conducted under Ceiling Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder as claimed by appellants or whether determination of ceiling area would be as per Ceiling 6 Act, but the proceedings would be held as per G.E.T.A. Act and Rules framed thereunder. He further concedes that the contentions raised by him during the course of argument in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, were considered and discussed in the judgment under review. 15. Before learned Single Judge also, similar contentions were raised by the appellants and learned Single Judge held that Ceiling Act, 1960 would be attracted only for determination of ceiling area and rest of the matters would be dealt with by G.E.T.A. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This Court affirmed the view taken by learned Single Judge. 16. Thus, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel that appellants are seeking rehearing of the matter by filing Review Application and outcome would be no different even if what the review applicants now allege, is treated as correct. 17. Law is well settled that power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake, but not to substitute a view. The review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order, and re-hearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. This power is invoked only to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. 18. After detailed hearing, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which may warrant 7 invocation of review jurisdiction. 19. Thus, Review Application (MCC/15625/2025) is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ____________________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 8th September, 2025 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F , cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.12 19:19:18 +05'30'