ORDER : 1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020 has filed this review petition, invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1, read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeking review of the judgment dated 05.03.2026 of this Court in that writ petition to the extent indicated in the last paragraph of the memorandum of review petition, which reads thus: “……………. To review the judgment dated 05.03.2026 in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020 and recall that part of the judgment in paragraph 17, wherein this Hon’ble Court observed, relying on the submission of the learned Advocate General that vide order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014, the original document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, was returned to the petitioner as per the orders of this Court.” (Underline supplied) 2. The petitioner herein, namely, M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 , having its registered office at Bristow Road, Willingdon Island, Cochin, has filed W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. The petitioner herein, namely, M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 , having its registered office at Bristow Road, Willingdon Island, Cochin, has filed W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. dated 06.06.2019 issued by the 1 st respondent State, Ext.P10 notice dated 05.09.2020 issued by the 6 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakkanal, Ext.P11 notice dated 11.09.2020 issued by the 5 th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam, Ext.P12 communication dated 09.09.2020 issued by the 4 th respondent Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar Division to the 5 th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam and Ext.P13 notice dated 11.09.2020 issued by the 5 th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent State and the 6 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakkanal, to receive land tax in respect of Upper Surianalle Estate, having an extent of 2451 Acres comprised in Chinnakkanal Village of Udumbanchola Taluk and Lockhart Estate, having an extent of 1594 Acres comprised in Kannan Devan Hills Village of Devikulam Taluk, without imposing any condition as stipulated in Ext.P7 Government order dated 06.06.2019; an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to carry on with its normal agricultural operation in respect of Upper Surianalle and Lockhart Estates, including that of cutting and removing fuel trees from those estates, based on Exts.P8, P8(a) and P9 permits issued by the 5 th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam. 3. By the judgment dated 05.03.2026, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020 and the connected writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.22403 of 2024, with the directions contained in paragraphs 12 and 32 of that judgment. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, this Court dealt with the issue in respect of the felling of trees for fuel purpose in Upper Surianalle, Lockhart and Panniar Estates and in paragraph 32, the challenge made in both the writ petitions against the Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. dated 06.06.2019. Paragraphs 12 and 32 of the judgment dated 05.03.2026 read thus: “12. dated 06.06.2019. Paragraphs 12 and 32 of the judgment dated 05.03.2026 read thus: “12. On the above issue, the submission made by the learned Advocate General, during the course of arguments, which is stated in the written submission dated 12.12.2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020 by the learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) is that for cutting and removal of fuel trees and other trees, if necessary, the petitioner has to file proper application before the competent authority, which will be considered on the basis of the statutory provisions applicable under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-forest Areas Act, 2005 and the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 . As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner is not legally entitled to get transit passes to different places like Perumbavoor, as seen in Ext.P8 pass in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, i.e., out of the limits of the respective estates. Permission can be granted only for the purpose of fuel and other works, within the respective estates, even if the petitioner is found entitled to cut down trees. In such circumstances, for the aforesaid purpose, it is for the petitioner to make proper applications before the competent authority in respect of the estates in question, in which event, the said authority shall consider the same, strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 and the , untrammelled by any of the observations contained in the impugned communications, after affording the authorised representative of the petitioner, an opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. xxx xxx xxx 32. Viewed in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act , and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person, whose name appears in the said records. Entries in revenue records have only ‘fiscal purpose’, i.e., for payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title of the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. The mere fact that any of the disputing parties had paid basic tax for any particular period cannot be taken as a fact conferring right upon such party for continued payment of basic tax. Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title of the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. The mere fact that any of the disputing parties had paid basic tax for any particular period cannot be taken as a fact conferring right upon such party for continued payment of basic tax. Therefore, conclusion is irresistible that the condition imposed in the Government order dated 06.06.2019, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.22403 of 2024, to the extent it stipulates that the land tax received from the petitioner, i.e., Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. and its assignees shall be subject to the final decision in the civil suit proposed to be filed by the State, as contained in paragraph 10(II) of the said Government order, cannot be sustained in law and the Government order dated 06.06.2019 to that extent is set aside; however without prejudice to the right of the State in seeking appropriate interim reliefs in the original suits filed against the petitioner, in respect of the lands in question, which are now pending before the competent civil court. It would be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to file proper application before the competent authority for receiving land tax from the petitioner in respect of Upper Surianalle and Panniar estates and for receiving special grant tax in respect of Lockhart estate, with supporting documents, and pursue the same as per the statutory requirements of the . It would also be open to the petitioner to make proper applications before the competent authority for cutting and removal of fuel trees and other trees, in view of the specific stand taken by the 1 st respondent State, which we have taken note of hereinbefore at paragraph 12; in which event, the competent authority shall consider the same on the basis of the statutory provisions applicable under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act and the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 , taking note of the directions contained hereinbefore at paragraph 12.” 4. In paragraph 17 of the judgment dated 05.03.2026 in W.P.(C)Nos.20484 of 2020 and 22403 of 2024, this Court noticed that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner has not produced any documents along with the writ petitions to prove its title and ownership over the subject properties. In paragraph 17 of the judgment dated 05.03.2026 in W.P.(C)Nos.20484 of 2020 and 22403 of 2024, this Court noticed that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner has not produced any documents along with the writ petitions to prove its title and ownership over the subject properties. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment dated 05.03.2026 read thus; “16. Regarding the ownership and possession of the land in respect of Upper Surianalle, Lockhart and Panniar estates, the pleadings in W.P.(C)Nos.20484 of 2020 and 22403 of 2024 are to the effect that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the said properties, for the past more than a century, having obtained the same under valid document of title, and that the company has been remitting all statutory levies in respect of the said estates, including land tax, until 2013. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner filed detailed objections to Ext.P1 notice issued by the Special Officer and Collector, producing therewith documents of title to prove ownership over the properties and also revenue records, judgments/orders passed by various courts and other statutory authorities, recognising the title of the petitioner. 17. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner has not produced any documents along with these writ petitions to prove its title and ownership over the subject properties. Though document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, is mentioned in the writ petition and the order of this Court dated 04.04.1979 in C.P.No.25 of 1978 is mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment dated 11.04.2018 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, a copy of the title document and a copy of the judgment dated 11.04.2018 are not produced before the Revenue authorities, along with a proper application, for effecting change of name or mutation. No such application is on record in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to receive land tax from the petitioner in respect of the two estates. No such application is on record in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to receive land tax from the petitioner in respect of the two estates. As already noticed hereinbefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, is deposited before this Court in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014, which culminated in the decision of the Division Bench in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.  2018 (2) KLT 369 . On the other hand, the submission of the learned Advocate General was that, as understood by the State and the official respondents, document No.1600 of 1923 of Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, was returned to the petitioner as per the order of this Court dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014. We do not propose to consider the rival submissions on the above aspect in these writ petitions. We notice that no explanation whatsoever is offered by the petitioner for not producing a copy of title document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, as part of the pleadings in these writ petitions.” 5. The ground raised in this review petition, in order to seek review of the judgment dated 05.03.2026 in W.P.(C)No. 20484 of 2020, is that the observation of this Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, made based on the submissions of the learned Advocate General that the original of document No.1600 of 1923 of S.R.O., Quilon, was returned to the petitioner as per order of this Court 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014 is factually incorrect and is an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed. Grounds A and B of the review petition read thus; “A. The observation of this Hon’ble Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, made based on the submissions of the learned Advocate General that the original of Document No.1600 of 1923 of S.R.O., Quilon was returned to the petitioner as per order of this Hon’ble Court 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014 is factually incorrect and is an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed. B. Even though this Hon’ble Court held that the said aspect of the matter need not be gone into, it is likely that it may be treated as a finding by the Courts before which suits are filed by the Government against the review petitioner. The Government may also take advantage of the said observation, which may persuade the Courts in which suits are pending to draw an adverse inference against the review petitioner.” (Underline supplied) 6. The document marked as Annexure B in this review petition is an acknowledgement dated 06.02.2015 issued by the Registrar General of this Court, wherein it is stated that the counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014 produced document No.1600/1923 purported to be the original of Ext.P22(b) therein along with two colour photocopies before the Registrar General on 06.02.2015 along with an affidavit sworn to by the Senior Manager (Legal), M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Limited., wherein it is averred that the document produced is the original of document No.1600/1923 of Sub Registrar Office, Quilon. All the three documents were verified with Ext.P22(b) [referred to as Ext.P22 document in Annexure A1 order dated 05.02.2015 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014] and found to be same. In Annexure B it is certified that the colour copy produced is the true copy of document No.1600/1923 of Sub Registrar Office, Quilon produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, described as original in the affidavit. 7. On 18.05.2026, when this review petition came up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader sought an adjournment to get instructions with reference to Ground A of this review petition. 8. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader, representing the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 9. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that, as informed by the Registry, document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, referred to in Annexure B acknowledgment dated 06.02.2015 issued by Registrar General, is in the safe custody of the Registrar (Judicial). The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the observation contained in paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, which is factually incorrect and is an error apparent on the face of the record, is liable to be reviewed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the observation contained in paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, which is factually incorrect and is an error apparent on the face of the record, is liable to be reviewed. 10. As already noticed hereinbefore, in paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court noticed that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner has not produced any documents along with the writ petitions to prove its title and ownership over the subject properties. This Court also noticed that though document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, is mentioned in the writ petition and the order of this Court dated 04.04.1979 in C.P.No.25 of 1978 is mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment dated 11.04.2018 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.20484 of 2020, a copy of the title document and a copy of the judgment dated 11.04.2018 are not produced before the Revenue authorities, along with a proper application, for effecting change of name or mutation. After referring to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, is deposited before this Court in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014, which culminated in the decision of the Division Bench in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. 2018 (2) KLT 369 and the submission of the learned Advocate General that, as understood by the State and the official respondents, document No.1600 of 1923 of Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, was returned to the petitioner as per the order of this Court dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014, in paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, it was made it clear that this Court do not propose to consider the rival submissions on the above aspect in those writ petitions. In the said judgment, this Court has also noticed that no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioner for not producing a copy of title document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, as part of the pleadings in those writ petitions. In the said judgment, this Court has also noticed that no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioner for not producing a copy of title document No.1600 of 1923 of the Sub Registrar Office, Quilon, as part of the pleadings in those writ petitions. Therefore, we find absolutely no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observation of this Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, made based on the submissions of the learned Advocate General that the original of document No.1600 of 1923 of S.R.O., Quilon, was returned to the petitioner as per order of this Court 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.33122 of 2014 is factually incorrect and is an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed. A reading of paragraph 17 of the judgment sought to be reviewed would make it explicitly clear that no such observation was made by this Court in that judgment based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned Advocate General. 11. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 , the Apex Court held that review is, by no means, an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. 12. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715 , the Apex Court held that a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code is very limited. Unless there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment does not call for review. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, none of the grounds raised in the review petition falls within the ambit and scope of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. In the result, this review petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.