1 2025:CGHC:24438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 120 of 2025 1 - Biranchi Chaudhari S/o Hiralal Chaudhari Aged About 47 Years R/o Ahed Of Railway Crossing, Ward No.-50, Borsibhatha, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Tahsildar Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 7 - Estate Officer Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 8 - Additional District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Suman Nadesan Unni (In Person) W/o K. Krishnan Unni Aged About 56 Years R/o Quarter No. 4/a, Street No. 35, Sector-10, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.16 18:07:58 +0530 2 For Petitioner Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.9 Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate. (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. The review petitioner (not party in the writ petition) seeks review of the order dated 24/02/2025 passed in WPC No.1035/2025 2. Learned counsel for appearing for the review petitioner would submit that the review petitioner was not having possession over the grass land. He would submit that by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court, the revenue authorities are proceeding against him in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 would submit that the present review petition is not maintainable as there is no illegality in the order dated 24/02/2025, which is sought to be reviewed. He would submit that the review petitioner has filed WPC No.1787/2025 and 2132/2025 which have been disposed of with a liberty to the review petitioner (writ petitioner therein) to file an appropriate application before the concerned respondent authorities along with relevant documents. 4. Perused the review petition as also the order under review dated 24/02/2025 passed in WPC No.1035/2025. 3 5. From bare perusal of the order dated 24/02/2025, which is sought to be reviewed herein, it is manifest that this Court directed the Collector to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner and look into the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and take necessary steps, if illegal encroachment is found over the grassland situated in village-Borsi bearing Khasra No.194/1. 6. The Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore I am not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 7. 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. 4 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). 8. The ground raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 9. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep