Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-examine merits or reduce granted units absent a cross-review.

The petitioners are heirs of Kuberbhai Lallubhai, whose family held land subject to the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. In earlier revision proceedings, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) held that the petitioners were entitled to hold three units as of 01.04.1976

The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before the GRT specifically to claim an additional 2/5th unit under Section 6(3B) of the Act

Despite the State not filing any cross-review or challenge to the original order of three units, the GRT, while deciding the petitioners' review application, dismissed the claim for an additional unit and further reduced the petitioners' entitlement from three units to two and one-half units

1. Whether the Revenue Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the merits of the case and reducing the allotted units in a review application filed by the petitioners for enhancement

2. Whether the Tribunal can exercise powers of review to correct an "erroneous decision" on merits in the absence of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record

The court applied the principles of review jurisdiction under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, which are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This rule limits review to (i) discovery of new evidence, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) other sufficient reasons

The court relied on State of West Bengal Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta Anr., which clarifies that a "mistake or error apparent" must be self-evident and not require a detailed examination of facts or law

It further cited Parison Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., establishing that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and cannot be used to re-hear an erroneous decision

The scope of the review was limited to the petitioners' request for an additional 2/5th unit under Section 6(3B); however, the Tribunal engaged in a "long drawn process of reasoning" to re-evaluate the entire merit of the case

The Court noted that since the State had not challenged the original grant of three units, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce those units in a review petition filed by the landholders

The Court reasoned that there is a sharp distinction between an "erroneous decision" (correctable by an appellate court) and an "error apparent on the face of the record" (correctable by a review court)

By re-appreciating evidence to reduce the units, the Tribunal effectively acted as an appellate body over its own previous judgment, which is impermissible under review jurisdiction

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The matter was remanded to the Revenue Tribunal to decide the review application afresh, strictly within the limited scope of review jurisdiction and after hearing all parties, including subsequent purchasers (Respondents 4-8)