A finding contradicted by the record constitutes an apparent error warranting review.

The petitioners sought review of the High Court’s order dated 17 April 2025 dismissing their writ petition.

They contended that the order proceeded on the incorrect premise that the subject land was “Sarkari Paramboke.”

In support, they relied on the Land Tribunal’s counter in Case No. LRA/TT/19/1988, which denied that Survey No. 124 was a paramboke tank and stated that the RTC and patta showed otherwise.

The State opposed review, submitting that the writ petition had been dismissed on merits.

Whether the original order contained an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the character of the subject land, warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Whether the original order should be recalled and the writ petition restored upon finding that error.

The petition was brought under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A judgment may be reviewed for an error apparent on the face of the record, but review is limited: it is not an appeal in disguise, does not permit rehearing or correction of an allegedly erroneous decision, and does not extend to an error requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning.

The Court relied on Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer and Another, (2024) 2 SCC 362, para. 16.

The original order recorded that the subject land was “Sarkari Paramboke” and relied on that premise in upholding the revenue authorities’ conclusion.

The review court compared that finding with the Land Tribunal’s counter, which expressly denied that Survey No. 124 was a paramboke tank and stated that the RTC and patta did not show it as such.

It concluded that the original finding was incorrect and constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, rather than an issue requiring reargument on the merits.

Applying the review principles stated in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, the Court held that review was warranted.

The Court recalled its order dated 17 April 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11423 of 2025, and restored that writ petition to its original file.