Court dismisses review petition for exceeding scope of procedure rules; petitioners to bear costs.

The Court dismissed the review petition as the issues raised did not fall within the scope of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reiterated that the power of review cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a decision on its merits, as that falls under the jurisdiction of appellate courts. The petitioners were directed to bear their own costs as the review lacked merit.

---

---

Issues:
Review of judgment based on interpretation of time restriction clause in a scheme, applicability of Government Grants Act for ownership claim, reliance on previous judgment, principles governing review petitions.

Interpretation of Time Restriction Clause:
The petitioners sought a review of a judgment based on the interpretation of a time restriction clause in a scheme. They argued that the Court incorrectly determined the period of restriction to be 20 years instead of 15 years as stated in the scheme. The Deputy Commissioner's role in clarifying the order was also contested. The Court emphasized that the official respondents were the best authorities to confirm the time period of the restriction, and the Deputy Commissioner's actions were previously addressed in the order.

Applicability of Government Grants Act:
The petitioners claimed complete ownership under the Government Grants Act after receiving a grant under a specific scheme. The Court clarified that once a grant is made under a scheme, it is governed by the provisions of that scheme and not by the Government Grants Act. The ownership claim was to be determined based on the scheme's provisions.

Reliance on Previous Judgment:
The petitioners relied on a previous judgment to support their case, arguing that alterations through notifications could only apply to transactions post-notification. However, the Court rejected this contention, stating that it was not part of the original plea and was not argued during the proceedings, hence lacking merit for consideration.

Principles Governing Review Petitions:
The Court outlined principles for the maintainability of review petitions, emphasizing that reviews are not avenues to correct erroneous decisions but are limited to errors apparent on the record. The judgment highlighted scenarios where reviews are maintainable, such as new evidence discovery or manifest errors on record. It also specified instances where reviews are not maintainable, including repeating old arguments and seeking re-hearing of issues already settled.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the issues raised did not fall within the scope of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reiterated that the power of review cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a decision on its merits, as that falls under the jurisdiction of appellate courts. The petitioners were directed to bear their own costs as the review lacked merit.

---