RA-CW-319-2026 in CWP-6883-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 RA-CW-319-2026 in CWP-6883-2026 Date of decision: 03.07.2026 Mohit Bhadu and others ....Review Applicants/Petitioners Vs. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Judgpreet Singh Warring , Advocate for the review applicants/petitioners. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral) The present review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by this Court in CWP No. 6883 of 2026. 2. The aforesaid review application is being filed in pursuance to the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1568 of 2026, vide order dated 29.05.2026. The relevant extract thereof reads as follows:- “2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the facts mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge are incorrect and still the land, which can be cultivated and in which land ANKIT 2026.07.10 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RA-CW-319-2026 in CWP-6883-2026 -2- cultivation is already going on, needs irrigation, hence the present appeal may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to approach learned Single Judge so as to review the said order on all available grounds. 3. Ordered accordingly.” 3. During the course of hearing of this review application, learned counsel appearing for the review applicants/petitioners was called upon to point out as to which of the facts mentioned in para No.5 of the judgment dated 24.03.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6883 of 2026 were incorrect. 3.1 In response to the aforesaid query, learned counsel appearing for the review applicants/petitioners has failed to point out as to which of the facts recorded in para No.5 of the abovesaid order dated 24.03.2026, is incorrect. 3.2 Rather learned counsel appearing for review applicants/petitioners has not disputed that, lot of construction/houses/factories have come up in the area. In this regard even a spot inspection report of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar, is already available on record. It is also not disputed that majority of the area in question has become uncultivable, on account of which, the area in question has been made uncommand area. 4. The only submission now being sought to raised by the review applicants/petitioners is that there is a gair mumkin pond (diggi) in the land comprised in rectangle No.69, khasra No.18 and rectangle No.125, khasra No.6, which belongs to the review applicants/petitioners, and by making the ANKIT 2026.07.10 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RA-CW-319-2026 in CWP-6883-2026 -3- said area as uncommand, the review applicants/petitioners would suffer losses. 5. I have considered the aforesaid submission raised on behalf of the review applicants/petitioners, however, suffice it to say that the area comprised in rectangle No.69, killa No.18 is located on the one side of the village, whereas the area comprised in rectangle No.125 killa No.6 is located on the other side of the village (refer to the siteplan/Annexure P-10 available with the main writ petition). 5.1 While referring to the site plan, it is again not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the review applicants/petitioners that in between both the above-referred khasra numbers, lot of construction/houses have come up, thereby rendering area as uncultivable. 6. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, I see no cogent reason for holding that the above said two khasra numbers to the extent of 2 kanals each under the gair mumkin pond (diggi) be declared as command area, whereas entire adjoining area continues to be declared as uncommand. 7. I am also of the considered view that so far as the area under gair mumkin pond (diggi) to the extent of 2 kanals each is concerned, the same have been dug up by the review applicants/petitioners of their own volition so as to hoard the water, however, the said fact alone cannot form basis for declaring the said area to be command area. 7.1 The other attending circumstances as well as the feasibility of the area to be put to canal irrigation has to be seen for retaining the area as command area, which in the present case is apparently missing. ANKIT 2026.07.10 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RA-CW-319-2026 in CWP-6883-2026 -4- 8. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer” (1), 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 5636; has considered the scope of a review petition and has observed as under:- “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) 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. ANKIT 2026.07.10 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RA-CW-319-2026 in CWP-6883-2026 -5- (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review…” 9. No other argument has been raised. 10. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no merit in the review application. Resultantly, the instant review application fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 03.07.2026 JUDGE ankit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ANKIT 2026.07.10 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh