# Shiv Ratan Dixit & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 814
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 57045 of 2011
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-ratan-dixit-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53765
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Issue for Consideration
Whether, after dismissal of State's Special Leave
Petition by Supreme Court upon hearing both
parties, High Court retains jurisdiction to
entertain a review application against its earlier
judgment dated 22.01.2015, particularly when
such review is sought on the ground of alleged
error apparent on face of record relating to
date of possession of disputed land (recorded
as 06.01.2003 instead of 04.08.1992).

Headnotes
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 - ss. 6(1), 8(4), 10(1), 10(3), -
Petitioners,
challenged
alleged
illegal
taking of possession of their land under
Act, 1976 and its subsequent transfer to
Kanpur Development Authority - They
contended that certificate of possession
dated 06.01.2003, relied upon by State to
assert transfer of possession, was a mere
paper transaction, as they continued to
remain in actual physical possession of
disputed
land
-
Division
Bench,
by
judgment dated 22.01.2015, accepted this
contention and allowed writ petition -
Aggrieved,
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
preferred Special Leave Petition before
Supreme Court, dismissed on 04.12.2019
after hearing both parties - Thereafter,
State filed Civil Misc. Review Application
seeking review of said judgment on the
plea that Court had proceeded on wrong
premise by recording date of possession
as 06.01.2003 instead of 04.08.1992,
thereby asserting error apparent on face
of record - Petitioners opposed review as
abuse
of
process,
contending
that
dismissal of SLP on contest barred any
review - Interference with
Held: To address applicant's ground for review,
it was contended that error apparent existed as
possession was allegedly taken on 4th August
1992, whereas Division Bench referred to
possession with State based on certificate dated
6th January 2003 - However, when possession
was shown to be given to Kanpur Development
Authority vide certificate dated 6th January,
2003, Division Bench, upon examining said
certificate, recorded categorical finding that land
remained under cultivation of writ petitioners
even at the time of its preparation and
constructions existed only on remaining portion,
thereby holding that possession claimed by
respondents through certificate dated 6th
January 2003 was merely a paper transaction -
Writ petitioners had actual physical possession
over land in dispute even thereafter and till date
of judgment - Division Bench was dealing with
petitioners' claimed possession at time it
prepared certificate - On perusal of it, Bench
appreciated review applicant to be in purported
possession inasmuch as, it sought to deliver
possession to Kanpur Development Authority -
From relied upon paragraph, it is evident that
Division Bench did not hold that review
8 All. Shiv Ratan Dixit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
815
applicant
had
obtained
possession
under
certificate dated 6th January 2003, observations
therein were findings of fact and inferences
drawn therefrom, not indicative of any error
apparent on record. - It follows that State,
being aggrieved by findings, was advised to
seek special leave before Supreme Court -
Review applicant has disclosed no subsequent
discovery of material which, despite due
diligence, could not have been produced earlier
- Hence, ground urged for review is based
neither on newly discovered evidence nor on
any error apparent on face of record - Delay is
condoned, review application is admitted, but
dismissed on merits. [Paras 9, 10] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
Experion
Developers
Private
Limited
v.
Himanshu Dewan, Sonali Dewan and others,
Civil Appeal No. 1434 of 2023, judgment
dated 18.08.2023; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v.
Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane
Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376; Abbai
Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran
reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386 - referred to

List of Acts
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976;
Repeal Act, 1999

List of Keywords
Review Application; Error apparent on face of
record; Judgment un

## Text

814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. Learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 lays emphasis and reads the directions
contained in the judgement of Indra
Sawhwney (supra) to argue that the bar of
50% reservation is not sacrosanct and can
be breached. However, he does not dispute
that the same can be breached only in
accordance with law. He could not place
any Act/prescriptions under law justifying
the breach.

30. The petition is allowed in the
abovesaid terms.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 814
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Writ C No. 57045 of 2011

Shiv Ratan Dixit & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Whether, after dismissal of State's Special Leave
Petition by Supreme Court upon hearing both
parties, High Court retains jurisdiction to
entertain a review application against its earlier
judgment dated 22.01.2015, particularly when
such review is sought on the ground of alleged
error apparent on face of record relating to
date of possession of disputed land (recorded
as 06.01.2003 instead of 04.08.1992).

Headnotes
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 - ss. 6(1), 8(4), 10(1), 10(3), -
Petitioners,
challenged
alleged
illegal
taking of possession of their land under
Act, 1976 and its subsequent transfer to
Kanpur Development Authority - They
contended that certificate of possession
dated 06.01.2003, relied upon by State to
assert transfer of possession, was a mere
paper transaction, as they continued to
remain in actual physical possession of
disputed
land
-
Division
Bench,
by
judgment dated 22.01.2015, accepted this
contention and allowed writ petition -
Aggrieved,
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
preferred Special Leave Petition before
Supreme Court, dismissed on 04.12.2019
after hearing both parties - Thereafter,
State filed Civil Misc. Review Application
seeking review of said judgment on the
plea that Court had proceeded on wrong
premise by recording date of possession
as 06.01.2003 instead of 04.08.1992,
thereby asserting error apparent on face
of record - Petitioners opposed review as
abuse
of
process,
contending
that
dismissal of SLP on contest barred any
review - Interference with
Held: To address applicant's ground for review,
it was contended that error apparent existed as
possession was allegedly taken on 4th August
1992, whereas Division Bench referred to
possession with State based on certificate dated
6th January 2003 - However, when possession
was shown to be given to Kanpur Development
Authority vide certificate dated 6th January,
2003, Division Bench, upon examining said
certificate, recorded categorical finding that land
remained under cultivation of writ petitioners
even at the time of its preparation and
constructions existed only on remaining portion,
thereby holding that possession claimed by
respondents through certificate dated 6th
January 2003 was merely a paper transaction -
Writ petitioners had actual physical possession
over land in dispute even thereafter and till date
of judgment - Division Bench was dealing with
petitioners' claimed possession at time it
prepared certificate - On perusal of it, Bench
appreciated review applicant to be in purported
possession inasmuch as, it sought to deliver
possession to Kanpur Development Authority -
From relied upon paragraph, it is evident that
Division Bench did not hold that review
8 All. Shiv Ratan Dixit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
815
applicant
had
obtained
possession
under
certificate dated 6th January 2003, observations
therein were findings of fact and inferences
drawn therefrom, not indicative of any error
apparent on record. - It follows that State,
being aggrieved by findings, was advised to
seek special leave before Supreme Court -
Review applicant has disclosed no subsequent
discovery of material which, despite due
diligence, could not have been produced earlier
- Hence, ground urged for review is based
neither on newly discovered evidence nor on
any error apparent on face of record - Delay is
condoned, review application is admitted, but
dismissed on merits. [Paras 9, 10] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
Experion
Developers
Private
Limited
v.
Himanshu Dewan, Sonali Dewan and others,
Civil Appeal No. 1434 of 2023, judgment
dated 18.08.2023; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v.
Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane
Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376; Abbai
Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran
reported in (1998) 7 SCC 386 - referred to

List of Acts
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976;
Repeal Act, 1999

List of Keywords
Review Application; Error apparent on face of
record; Judgment under review; Abuse of the
process of the court; Special Leave Petition
(SLP); Delay condoned; Condonation of delay;
Purported possession; Certificate of possession;
Physical
possession;
Paper
transaction;
Competent authority; Date of possession;
Neither based on new materials.
Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 57045 of
2011

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015
of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitoner:
Sanjay Kumar, Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi

Adv. for the Respondent:
Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Sanjay Goswami, Parth
Goswami
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. The review application is for
hearing and disposal. Review-applicant is
the State. It seeks review of judgment dated
22nd January, 2015 of a Division Bench,
none of the learned judges in which are at
present available. Hence, we as the regular
Bench are dealing with the review.

2. The application was earlier heard on
12th August, 2025 by a Bench, to which
one of us was party (Arindam Sinha, J.).
Preliminary objection was raised on behalf
of writ petitioners, opposing the review,
contending State had filed Special Leave to
Appeal petition (SLP) in the Supreme
Court, dismissed on order dated 4th
December, 2019. It then filed for review on
delay. It is an abuse of the process.

3. Mr. Srivastava, learned advocate
and Standing Counsel appears on behalf of
review-applicant (State). He relies on
judgment dated 18th August, 2023 of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.1434 of
2023
(Experion
Developers
Private
Limited Vs. Himanshu Dewan, Sonali
Dewan and others), paragraphs 26 to 28 in
Indian Kanoon print. He submits, the SLP
having had been dismissed by the Supreme
Court, it does not cause merger, for said
judgment dated 22nd January, 2015 as can
be said to have been confirmed, thereby
barring right of review.

4. He draws attention to ground no.1
in the review application to submit, there is
error apparent in the judgment. It is
reproduced below.
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"1.
Because,
the
Hon'ble
Division Bench while allowing the petition
appears to have proceeded on a wrong
premise regarding the date of possession,
recording it as 06.01.2003. However the
date of possession in the present matter is
04.08.1992. The possession had also been
transferred to the Kanpur Development
Authority in the year 2003. The name of
the Urban Ceiling / State Government was
recorded in the Revenue Records, in the
year 2003. Therefore it is apparent that an
error has crept in, and which invites
attentions of this Hon'ble Court for Review
of the judgment dated 22.01.2015."

(emphasis supplied)

He submits, by said judgment
dated 22nd January, 2015 the Division
Bench
had
made
error
apparent
in
recording the date of possession to be 6th
January, 2003. It was taken long before on
4th August, 1992. He then relies upon a
paragraph in said judgment, reproduced
below.

"It is stated that from record it
appears that the petitioners also inspected
the record of the office of the Competent
Authority and found that a certificate of
possession of 6.1.2003 had, been prepared
by the authorities whereby they have shown
to have transferred the possession of the
excess vacant land of the petitioners to the
employees of the Kanpur Development
Authority, Kanpur. However, a perusal of
the said certificate of possession clearly
show that the land of plot nos.68,69,70,47
and 125M was shown under cultivation of
the petitioners even at the time of
preparation
of
certificate
while
constructions
were
shown
on
the
remaining land. This fact itself establishes
that purported possession of respondents
vide certificate dated 6.1.2003 was a mere
paper transaction and petitioners had
actual physical possession over the land in
dispute even thereafter and uptill now."

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. Srivastava submits, the delay
be condoned and as there is error apparent
in the judgment under review, it be
recalled. The writ petition be posted for
hearing once again.

5. Mr. Sanjay Goswami, learned
advocate appears on behalf of petitioners in
the writ petition. He opposes only the
review application on submission, State
itself said in its SLP that advice from the
legal department was to file SLP. He
reiterates his clients' contention that after
the SLP stood dismissed on order dated 4th
December, 2019 of the Supreme Court,
State cannot now turn around and press for
review.

6. Preliminary objection that the
review is abuse of the process is based on
review applicant having unsuccessfully
petitioned the Supreme Court for Special
Leave to Appeal against judgment dated
22nd January, 2015 and then moving this
Court, for review of it. The Supreme Court
in Experion Developers (supra) referred
to, inter alia, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs.
Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare
Karkhane Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC
376, paragraphs 16 to 18 in which dealt
with situations as may arise on SLPs
dismissed and reviews filed in the lower
Court thereafter. In paragraph 16, [Khoday
Distilleries
Ltd.
(supra)]
there
was
reference made to an earlier decision of
said Court in Abbai Maligai Partnership
Firm vs. K. Santhakumaran reported in
(1998) 7 SCC 386, wherein the Supreme
8 All. Shiv Ratan Dixit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
817
Court had disapproved of the High Court
entertaining a review filed after dismissal
of the SLP. In said paragraph (16) stands
quoted paragraph 4 from Abbai Maligai
Partnership Firm (supra). The extracted
and reproduced paragraph 4 is also
reproduced below.

"4. The manner in which the
learned Single Judge of the High Court
exercised the review jurisdiction, after the
special leave petitions against the selfsame
order had been dismissed by this Court
after hearing learned counsel for the
parties, to say the least, was not proper.
Interference by the learned Single Judge
at that stage is subversive of judicial
discipline. The High Court was aware that
the SLPs against the orders dated 7-11987 had already been dismissed by this
Court. The High Court, therefore, had no
power or jurisdiction to review the
selfsame order, which was the subjectmatter of challenge in the SLPs in this
Court after the challenge had failed. By
passing the impugned order on 7-4-1994,
judicial propriety has been sacrificed.
After the dismissal of the special leave
petitions by this Court, on contest, no
review petitions could be entertained by
the High Court against the same order.
The very entertainment of the review
petitions, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, was an affront to the order
of this Court. We express our strong
disapproval and hope there would be no
occasion in the future when we may
have
to
say
so.
The
jurisdiction
exercised by the High Court, under the
circumstances, was palpably erroneous.
The respondents who approached the
High Court after the dismissal of their
SLPs by this Court, abused the process
of the court and indulged in vexatious
litigation. We strongly deprecate the
matter in which the review petitions were
filed and heard in the High Court after
the dismissal of the SLPs by this Court.
The appeals deserve to succeed on that
short
ground.
The
appeals
are,
consequently, allowed and the impugned
order dated 7-4-1994 passed in the
review petitions is hereby set aside. The
respondents shall pay Rs 10,000 as
costs."

(emphasis supplied)

7. We find from order dated 4th
December, 2019, whereby the Supreme
Court dismissed review-applicant's SLP
[(petition for special leave to appeal(c)
no.33292 of 2015, State of U.P. and
another vs. Shiv Ratan Dixit and
others)], it was made upon hearing the
counsel. Said order bears record of
appearance showing both petitioners and
respondents were represented before the
Supreme Court. This is because on earlier
order dated 27th November, 2015 there
was direction for notice, after which by
order dated 13th November, 2017 it was
recorded that all the respondents had
already filed counter affidavits. Text of
said order of dismissal made thereafter on
4th December, 2019 is reproduced below.

"The application for discharge of
previous Advocate-on-Record is allowed in
terms of the prayer made.

Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

The special leave petition is
dismissed.

As a sequel to the above, pending
interlocutory
applications
also
stand
disposed of."
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

 (emphasis supplied)

8.
As
aforesaid,
in
Experion
Developers (supra), the Supreme Court
referred to paragraph 20 in Khoday
Distilleries
Ltd.
(supra),
reproduced
below.

"20.
The
Court
thereafter
analysed number of cases where orders of
different nature were passed and dealt with
these judgments by classifying them in the
following categories:

(i) Dismissal at the stage of
special leave petition - without reasons - no
res judicata, no merger.

(ii) Dismissal of the special leave
petition by speaking or reasoned order -
no merger, but rule of discipline and
Article 141 attracted.

(iii) Leave granted - dismissal
without reasons - merger results."

 (emphasis supplied)

To our mind the proceeding
before the Supreme Court in applicant's
SLP, had directions given for issuance of
notice, respondents filed counter affidavits
and upon hearing counsel the review
dismissed
on
said
order
dated
4th
December, 2019. It would bring the
dismissal under instance (ii) given in
paragraph 20 of Khoday Distilleries Ltd.
(supra) read with paragraph 4 in Abbai
Maligai Partnership Firm (supra). We
say so because the SLPs referred to in
Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra)
were preferred against orders dated 7th
January, 1987 of the High Court. The
petitions for special leave to appeal
(civil)
nos.4039-4040
of
1987
were
dismissed by the Supreme Court on order
dated 16th September, 1987 upon hearing
the counsel. Text of the order is reproduced
below.

"Special
leave
petitions
are
dismissed."

The Supreme Court answering
the reference in Khoday Distilleries Ltd.
(supra) said in paragraph 21 as reproduced
below.

21. It may be pertinent to mention
here that while laying down the second
principle mentioned above, the Court took
note of the judgment in Abbai Maligai
Partnership Firm and discussed it in the
following manner: (Kunhayammed case,
SCC pp.377, para 26)

"26. The underlying logic attaching
efficacy to an order of the Supreme Court
dismissing SLP after hearing counsel for the
parties is discernible from a recent three-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Abbai Maligai
Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran. In the
matter of eviction proceeding initiated before
the Rent Controller, the order passed therein
was subjected to appeal and then revision
before the High Court. Special leave petitions
were preferred before the Supreme Court
where the respondents were present on caveat.
Both the sides were heard through the Senior
Advocates representing them. The special
leave petitions were dismissed. The High
Court thereafter entertained review petitions
which were highly belated and having
condoned the delay reversed the orders made
earlier in civil revision petitions. The orders in
review were challenged by filing appeals under
leave granted on special leave petitions. This
Court observed that what was done by the
learned Single Judge was "subversive of
judicial
discipline".
The
facts
and
circumstances of the case persuaded this Court
to form an opinion that the tenants were
indulging in vexatious litigations, abusing the
8 All. Smt. Kalindi Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
819
process of the Court by approaching the High
Court and the very entertainment of review
petitions (after condoning a long delay of 221
days) and then reversing the earlier orders was
an affront to the order of this Court. However
the learned Judges deciding the case have
nowhere in the course of their judgment relied
on doctrine of merger for taking the view they
have done. A careful reading of this decision
brings out the correct statement of law and
fortifies us in taking the view as under."

(emphasis supplied)

9. Nevertheless, to first address
applicant's ground for review, applicant's
contention is presence of error apparent
because according to it, possession was
taken on 4th August, 1992 but the Division
Bench referred to possession with State as
purportedly evidenced by certificate dated
6th January, 2003. In relied upon paragraph
reproduced above, we see clear finding of a
fact that when possession was shown to be
given to Kanpur Development Authority
vide certificate dated 6th January, 2003, the
Division Bench, from perusal of the
certificate of possession itself, said it
clearly showed that the lands were under
cultivation of (writ) petitioners even at the
time of preparation of the certificate, while
constructions were shown on the remaining
land. The Bench went on to say that it
establishes,
purported
possession
of
respondents
(review's
applicant)
vide
certificate dated 6th January, 2003 was a
mere paper transaction. Writ petitioners
had actual physical possession over the
land in dispute even thereafter and till the
date of judgment. The Division Bench was
dealing
with
petitioners'
claimed
possession at the time it prepared the
certificate. On perusal of it, said Bench
appreciated review applicant to be in
purported possession inasmuch as, it sought
to deliver the possession to Kanpur
Development Authority. By relied upon
paragraph in the judgment, the Division
Bench did not say review applicant had
come into possession vide said certificate
dated 6th January, 2003, for us to conclude
error apparent. Those were findings of facts
and inferences drawn thereupon. It follows,
State being aggrieved by the findings was
advised to prefer SLP for grant of leave by
the Supreme Court, to admit the matter as
an appeal before it. There is no disclosure
by
review-applicant,
on
discovery
subsequent to passing of the judgment
which even by due diligence it could not
lay its hands upon earlier. Thus, the urged
upon ground, said to be for review, is
neither
based
on
new
materials
subsequently discovered nor error apparent.

10. For reasons aforesaid, the delay is
condoned and the review application,
admitted. It is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 819
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 58143 of 2012

Smt. Kalindi Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.B. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N. Mishra, Sri Rajeev Sharma, Sri V.K.
Srivastava

Issue for Consideration