Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20975 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 37 of 2025 Applicant :- Parsu Ram And Others Opposite Party :- Asstt. Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Shankar Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mohd. Mustafizul Haq Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the review- petitioners. This review-petition has been preferred against the judgment passed by this Court dated 03.03.2025 in Writ-B No. 4405 of 1985 connected with Writ-B No. 3396 of 1987. The submission of learned counsel for the review-petitioners is that this Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment has incorrectly observed that the appeal of the review-petitioners was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereas the said appeal was allowed and according to the review- petitioners, this has materially affected the judgment. It is further urged that similarly in paragraph 21, the Court has incorrectly observed that petitioners were non-suited by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereas the review-petitioners have been non-suited by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and not by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is also urged that the order passed by this Court is against the weight of material on record and despite certain documents relating to 1339 Fasli, 1342 Fasli and 1346 Fasli have not been considered by the Court, accordingly, the judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of record. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the review- petitioners and also perused the material on record. In so far as the fact that in paragraph 16, this Court has noticed that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal of Agya Ram and Parag. This has rightly been pointed out that the appeal was not dismissed rather it was allowed. Nevertheless, it will be relevant to notice that in the same paragraph, the finding which was recorded could not be disputed to be incorrect by the learned counsel for the review-petitioners. Hence, merely by stating that the appeal was dismissed instead of being allowed but with correct narration can only be an error typographical in nature. The learned counsel for the review-petitioners could not dispute that the impact of the that the impact of the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been correctly noticed in the said paragraph. Thus, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of record to invoke the review-jurisdiction as this typographical error does not affect the judgment. In so far as the second submission of learned counsel for the review-petitioners relating to paragraph 21 of the judgment is concerned, it would reveal that perhaps the learned counsel for the review-petitioners has not understood the context of the paragraph 21 of the judgment, inasmuch as, it ought to be seen in light of the respective claims. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the review-petitioners that when the Court noticed that they were completely non-suited and excluded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, this was to be read in context with the entire contents of the judgment, inasmuch as, the claim raised by the review-petitioners was not only in respect of claiming right but also in respect of the extent of the share claimed. Once, the Court had noticed in paragraph 21 that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had completely non-suited the review-petitioners, it was apparent from the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that not only the right but also the share of the review-petitioners did not find favour with the Deputy Director of Consolidation and before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation when the petitioner had filed an appeal, his appeal was not allowed in toto. This aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the Court in the later part of the judgment where the submissions of learned counsel for the parties was considered. Thus, to that extent, this Court does not find that there is any error apparent on the face of record as suggested by the learned counsel for the review- petitioners. Not to mention that the claim as raised by the petitioners have been categorically taken note of, dealt with and decided by this Court. Coming to the next submission, learned counsel for the review- petitioners could not dispute that the documents which have been referred by him that the said documents were brought on record though at a much later stage, they have been noticed by this Court while deciding the writ petition in paragraph 42. Thus, this Court finds that the review-petitioners by filing the instant review-application is attempting to tempt this Court to re-hear the petition on merits which is not permissible. This Court does not find that there is any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the review-petitioners. Having said that this Court does find that a statement in paragraph 16 has not been correctly stated and to that extent, this review-application for this limited purpose is being treated as a correction application and the principal judgment dated 03.03.2025 it shall stand corrected only to the limited extend as under:- In paragraph 16 of the judgment the words " the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal of Agya Ram and Parag." This shall read as under:- "the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after hearing the parties allowed the appeal of Agya Ram and Parag." This order of correction shall be read along with the principal order dated 03.03.2025. With the aforesaid, the limited correction which has been pointed out is carried out. However, it is not a fit case for review, which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Asheesh/- Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench