2017 (8) TMI 1477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) before sale of the plot No. 386  (re-numbered as plot No. 348) in consolidation proceedings and hereinafter referred to as the suit property. 3. The admitted facts are that the suit property was land used as 'Abadi' and was declared 'Chakout' (meaning out of the consolidation scheme) after the preliminary survey was conducted. Four brothers were co-tenure holders of the land in dispute. One brother executed a sale deed of his 1/4th share in favour of respondents-defendants. The remaining three brothers filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants alleging that the sale is void since no permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as envisaged under Section 5(c)(ii) was obtained. They also claime....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned Single Judge has reopened the matter and gone beyond the scope of review and secondly that though the land may not be allotted under the consolidation scheme, it still is the part of the holding and would be covered by Section 5 of the Act. 6. As far as the scope of review is concerned, if a court finds that it has committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record and that error is pointed out to it in a review petition, there is nothing which prevents the court from correcting the error. In the judgment initially passed by the learned Single Judge, the court did not take into consideration the arguments raised that this portion of land was 'chakout' and therefore, was not part of the consolidation scheme. Therefore, th....