1 2025:CGHC:19023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 99 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Respondents No. 1 To 3) 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager Saripali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Babu Lal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District Korba (Cg) (Petitioner) 2 - Collector Korba District Korba (Cg) (Respondent No. 4) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28/04/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioners have sought recall/ modification of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in WPS No. 347 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the review petitioner was disposed of and respondents-SECL was directed to consider the claims of 2 petitioner within period of 45 days. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner who is seeking modification/ re- view of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in WPC No. 347 of 2025 sub- mits that in order to obtain favourable orders from this Court, petitioner has wrongly projected the fact that MP Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 was in existence at the time of land acquisition. In fact, the State Policy, 1991 was already superseded by the CG Rehabilitation Policy, 2005 and same was subsequently revised by the Government of Chhattisgarh in the offi- cial gazette on 23.02.2007. He further submits that in paragraph 4 of the order impugned, it is observed that “the SECL submitted that the rehabili- tation policy of CIL, 2012 provides that, if any of the land oustees has less than 2 acres of land, he would not be entitled to get employment.” In fact, as per Clause 8.1 (i)(B) of CIL R&R Policy, 2012, the total number of em- ployment provided to the land oustees would be limited to the total number of acres of land acquired in a particular village, divided by two. However, employment will be released in proportion to the land lost by the land ous- tees. He contends that in the matter of Pyarelal (supra), the Hon’ble Court has no where held that Policy, 1991 would only be applicable for the ac- quisition of land for Saraipali OCM project of SECL. He further contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vivek Krishna Versus UOI reported in AIROnline 2022 (SC) 754 held that “Policy matters are never interfered with unless patently arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.” He argues that on the basis of false and mis- leading statements, petitioner has obtained a favourable order from this Court, therefore, an immediate review of the order dated 15.01.2025 would be expedient in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 respondents submit that the contention raised hereinabove were not raised at the time of hearing of writ petition, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/ documents available on the record. 5. On due consideration of the above-stated pleadings and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The review petitioner cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in the review petition. 6. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 7. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made 4 against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 8. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 9. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 10. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 5 “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 11. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 12. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 13. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 14. In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for recall of the 6 order passed by this Court in WPC No. 347 of 2025. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WPC No. 347 of 2025] was decided by this Court on 15.01.2025 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in WPC No. 347 of 2025 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 15. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya