[2025:RJ-JP:34240-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 12/2021 Rama Devi Wife of Shri Ramesh Chand Tailor, Aged 51 Years, Resident Of Village Post Patan, Tehsil Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 3. Secretary Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 4. Administrative Committee, Panchayat Samiti Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 5. Prahlad Yogi Presently Working As Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 6. Anil Singh Tanwar Presently Working As Secretary, Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 7. Satish Sain Presently Working As Ward Panch Of Ward No. 03, Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 8. Rekha Bai Nadar Presently Working As Ward Panch of Ward No. 8, Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 9. Mahaveer Rao-1 Presently Working As Ward Panch Of Ward No. 05, Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 10. Sadhu Ram Saini Presently Working As Ward Panch Of Ward No. 13, Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. 11. Sultan Ram Saini Presently Working As Ward Panch Of Ward No. 06, Gram Panchayat Patan, Up Tehsil Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 28/08/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:34240-DB] (2 of 3) [WRW-12/2021] 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present petition preferred before the High Court, he had prayed to take action against the concerned Officer for illegally demolishing the construction. He submits that prayer made in the civil suit was different and therefore on account of pendency of the civil suit, the writ petition and the appeal could not have been dismissed. The Court failed to take notice of the different prayers made in the civil suit and that in the writ petition. He, therefore, prays to review the order passed by this Court dated 25.11.2020. 2. This Court notices that the petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction alleging that construction was legal and the same should not be demolished. 3. Considering the prayer as above, we find that the prayer made in the writ petition was consequential that is to take action against the concerned Officer who has demolished the construction. 4. We also noticed that the Civil Court refused to grant him temporary injunction. Thus, there is no finding of any Court that his construction was legal. Any action to demolish an illegal construction would therefore be in accordance with law. Since the Court has still to give a finding with regard to the construction made by the petitioner, the prayer made in the writ petition was misconceived. The Division Bench, therefore, rightly dismissed and upheld the order passed by learned Single Judge. Moreover we find that the scope for review is very limited. 5. In view of the judgment passed in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.:- (2024) 2 SCC 362 which reads as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:34240-DB] (3 of 3) [WRW-12/2021] “16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 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. 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. 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. 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”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 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. 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. 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.” 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, we do not find any reason to review our order dated 25.11.2020. 7. The present Review Petition (Writ) is dismissed accordingly. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/MAHIMA/9