Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked as an appellate remedy absent an error apparent on the record.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Maurya Nursery, had been permitted by the Patna Municipal Corporation to maintain a park in the setback area of the Maurya Lok Commercial Complex and sell plants on a no-profit-no-loss basis.

The permission was subsequently withdrawn, and fixtures allegedly installed by the petitioner, including an iron grill, semi-glazed partition, and potted plants, were removed or found missing during demolition.

The Single Judge held that the petitioner had no vested right to continue maintaining the park, declined compensation in the absence of evidence regarding misappropriation or loss of his property, and awarded litigation costs of ₹25,000.

The petitioner’s Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 15 November 2022. The petitioner thereafter sought review of that appellate judgment.

1. Whether the petitioner established an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 15 November 2022.

2. Whether the review jurisdiction could be exercised to reconsider the merits of the appellate decision concerning the withdrawal of permission, removal of fixtures, and denial of compensation.

The Court applied the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction. Review is permissible only where a manifest error or error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.

The Court also accepted the underlying finding that a permission to maintain a park did not confer a vested right to continue the activity where the governing arrangement permitted the Corporation to withdraw the concession, and that compensation could not be granted without evidence establishing loss or unauthorized removal of the petitioner’s property.

The Court examined the earlier appellate judgment and the materials on record but found no apparent error requiring correction.

The appellate Bench had already considered the petitioner’s claim regarding the demolished temporary structures and missing or damaged plants, while also upholding the Single Judge’s conclusion that the petitioner had no vested right to maintain the park and that compensation was unsupported by evidence.

The petitioner’s attempt to reopen those factual and legal conclusions would effectively require appellate reconsideration, which is impermissible in review proceedings.

Although the earlier judgment expressed disapproval of converting a green belt or park into a parking area, that observation did not establish any reviewable error in the operative decision.

Accordingly, Civil Review No. 319 of 2022 was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.