[2026:RJ-JP:2315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No.200/2025 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14328/2017 1. Shimbhu Dayal S/o Late Shri Kana Ram 2. Radheyshyam 3. Shriram 4. Rudmal sons of late Laxmi Narayan 5. Rati Ram S/o Shri Sadhu Ram 6. Devendra S/o late Shri Jagdish, all Resident of Village Bobadi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners/Non-Review-Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Panchayati Raj Department. 2. Additional Collector-I, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur. 3. Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Jamwaramgarh, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District, Jaipur. 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bobadi, Panchayat Samiti Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. ----Respondents-Non-Review Petitioners 5. Rajendra Kumar Sharma 6. Mahendra @ Sunil 7. Anil @ Jintendra 8. Umesh @ Upendra 5 to 8 are sons of late Shri Mohari Lal Sharma, resident of Post Bobadi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents-Review Petitioners For Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with Mr. Vinod Kumar For Respondent(s) : [2026:RJ-JP:2315] (2 of 3) [WRW-200/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/01/2026 1. This review petition has been filed by the review petitioners for reviewing and recalling order dated 24.11.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that although sufficient provisions were there for supporting the appellate order, however, the then counsel appearing for the review petitioners could not point out the same and under such circumstances without interpreting the provisions correctly, order dated 24.11.2025 has been passed. 3. Bare perusal of order dated 24.11.2025 would make it clear that the order was passed after hearing both the sides including the review petitioners and thereafter, following findings have been given: "8. As per Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, in case any order has been passed by the Appellate Authority of Panchayat Samiti, that can be challenged by way of filing revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 and learned counsel for the respondents has utterly failed to point out any provision for filing second appeal before the Administrative and Establishment Standing Committee of Zila Parishad, Jaipur. 9. Thus, the Zila Parishad has committed serious error of law in entertaining the appeal without having any jurisdiction under law and on account of there being lack of inherent jurisdiction, the appellate order dated 19.11.2014 could not have been examined and quashed by the Zila Parishad, Jaipur." 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioners is that the order is based upon erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Act and on account of different nomenclature of remedies provided in the Act, it is [2026:RJ-JP:2315] (3 of 3) [WRW-200/2025] sufficient to observe that it is a settled proposition of law that review petitioners can be entertained only in the case where there is an error apparent on the face of record. 5. Bare perusal of the review petition makes it clear that the review petitioners have utterly failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record. Thus, submission that the provisions were not rightly interpreted, cannot be said to be a ground for reviewing the order. 6. In view of above, the review petition filed by the review petitioners, is hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/1