Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17867 (CHH)

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. v. UDAL RAM

REVP/93/2025 · 2025-04-30

Smt Rajani Dubey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:19629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 93 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevera Extension Opencast Project Gevera Ara, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Land Revenue Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Office Of The General Manager, Gevera Extension Opencast Project Gevera Ara, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Udal Ram S/o Gopi Ram, Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram Ralia, Post Mudhali Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Order on Board 30/04/2025 By way of this petition, the petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 6.3.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.1545/2018 and other connected writ petitions. 02. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings recorded in the order dated 6.3.2025 that on the date of acquisition of land, the Policy of 1991 was in existence are erroneous and in fact, it was Chhattisgarh Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 which was in force at the relevant time and will be applicable to all projects in which proceedings of land acquisition is not completed like in the present case. Further, the petitioners/respondents never consented to the application of the CG Rehabilitation Policy of 2007 or MP Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. They were not afforded opportunity to argue on the issue of applicability of the policy to the case of the writ petitioners. Lastly he submits that for all the other land oustees except the writ petitioner, the case was considered under the Coal India Policy, 2002 as per decision of the District Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee and therefore, there cannot be a separate parameter or policy for consideration of case of the petitioner under the 1991 Policy. 03. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the order under review. 3 04. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 05. The grounds raised by the review petitioners in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. At the time of hearing of the writ petitions, the petitioners/SECL were duly represented by their counsel and after hearing both the parties at length and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the previous orders of this Court in similar matters, the order under review was passed. Even otherwise, there is no such error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. Thus, keeping in view the scope of 4 review petition as has been reiterated in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the grounds raised by the petitioners herein, this Court finds no good ground to exercise its review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition is liable to be and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.05.01 16:01:34 +0530