Review jurisdiction is limited to patent error or new material; it cannot reopen merits or add fresh arguments.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reason; it cannot be used to reargue the case or seek a rehearing. Applying that standard, the Court held that no reviewable error was shown and the review was not maintainable. It also held that a grant made under a special Nautor land allotment scheme remained governed by that scheme, so the Government Grants Act did not override it. A fresh contention based on Purshotam, not raised earlier, was also not entertainable in review.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition disclosed any ground for review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the Government Grants Act displaced the special scheme governing the grant. (iii) Whether the contention based on the earlier decision in Purshotam could be entertained in review.

Issue (i): Whether the petition disclosed any ground for review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Review lies only on discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to those grounds. The power cannot be used to re-argue the case, seek a re-hearing, or correct a decision merely because another view is possible. The alleged error must be manifest on the record and not one that has to be searched out or established by long-drawn reasoning.

Conclusion: The petition did not disclose any reviewable error or other sufficient ground, and the review was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government Grants Act displaced the special scheme governing the grant.

Analysis: The grant to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was made under a special scheme governing Nautor land allotments. Where a grant is made under such a special scheme, the rights and restrictions flowing from the scheme prevail, and the matter is governed by the scheme itself rather than by the Government Grants Act.

Conclusion: The Government Grants Act did not override the special scheme, and this contention failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the contention based on the earlier decision in Purshotam could be entertained in review.

Analysis: The Court found that this contention was neither pleaded nor argued in the original proceedings. A review cannot be used to raise a fresh argument that was not part of the original record, especially where no error apparent is shown.

Conclusion: The contention based on Purshotam was not entertainable in review and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review jurisdiction was held to be unavailable on the grounds urged, and the impugned order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is confined to patent error, discovery of new material despite due diligence, or analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be invoked to reopen the merits or conduct a rehearing.

---