1 2025:CGHC:25308-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 128 of 2025 1 - Dr. Ajit Anand Degwekar S/o Shri Anand Damodar Degwekar Aged About 65 Years R/o Hanuman Mandir Lane Budhapara, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s M.M.P. Water Sports Pvt. Ltd. Office No. 1 And 2, 5th Floor And Ground Floor, Aidun Building, Jss Road, First Dhobi Talao Lane, Near Metro Cinema, Mumbai 400002 2 - Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Through Managing Directore, 2nd Floor, Udyog Bhawarn, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur- 492006, C.G. 3 - Raipur Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Nagar Nigam Head Office, Near Mahila Police Thana, Gandhi Udyog, Raipur C.G. 4 - Raipur Smart City Limited Through Managing Director Ground Floor Chhatrapati Shivajee Maharaj Outdoor Stadium Campus, In Front Of Buddha Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tourism, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Order on Board Per; Rajani Dubey, Judge 18/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking reconsideration of the order dated 12.05.2022, passed in W.P.(C.) No. 2479 of 2020. The petitioner urges the exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that prior judgments on the subject matter, rendered by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, were not brought to the attention of this Hon’ble Court by either party in the matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is a permanent resident of Budhapara area, Raipur. He is aggrieved by the rampant and unauthorized commercial construction activities currently being carried out around Budhapara Talab / Swami Vivekanand Sarovar under the pretext of renovation and beautification. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court in WPPIL No. 48 of 2020, wherein this Court, after considering the submissions and records, had expressly held that the works undertaken were confined to beautification and renovation, specifically including the widening of the road, and importantly, no change in land use was permitted beyond this limited scope. This judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 12385 of 2020, which declined to interfere and reiterated that the project was strictly for development and beautification purposes, including road widening, and nothing beyond that. These judicial pronouncements clearly imposed a restriction that the land use shall not be altered for any commercial purpose. However, the petitioner has come to notice that a later 3 judgment dated 12.05.2022 in WPC No. 2479 of 2020, which set aside the termination of the license of the petitioner therein, was obtained without disclosing these prior judgments of this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby suppressing material facts that are critical to the adjudication of the matter. Such suppression has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and has been exploited by the respondents to permit commercial constructions such as shops and food courts on the widened road, thereby blocking one side of the road and violating the express prohibition laid down by the Superior Courts. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that neither the petitioner therein nor the respondent Municipal Corporation brought the earlier judgments to the notice of this Court despite these judgments having direct bearing on the subject matter and the conditions imposed for the operation of project. This deliberate non-disclosure has caused the Court to pass an order that is now being misused to alter the land use illegally and convert what was meant to be public space and traffic easing widened road into commercial premises, which the earlier judgments explicitly did not permit. The submissions of Municipal Corporation in WPPIL No. 48 of 2020 had admitted that the road widening was carried out only on unused portions of Government school land with the consent of school management strictly to reduce traffic congestion and for public benefit, and no commercial activity was envisaged or permitted. Yet, the respondents have blatantly violated these terms. Consequently, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to exercise its inherent powers and review jurisdiction to recall or modify the impugned judgment dated 12.05.2022, taking into account the earlier binding judicial 4 pronouncements, and restrain the respondents from continuing the illegal commercial construction activities, thereby protecting the public interest and ensuring compliance with the law. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the writ petition WPC No. 2479 of 2020, against which the present review petition is filed. The petitioner cannot be permitted to seek a review or modification of a judgment or order passed in proceedings in which he was not impleaded as a party, as such intervention would amount to upsetting the settled principles of locus standi and the finality of judicial decisions. It is a well-established legal position that only parties to the original proceeding or those who are aggrieved by the judgment passed therein can invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under review jurisdiction. The petitioner, having no locus standi in WPC No. 2479 of 2020, is thus not entitled to seek recall, modification, or review of the impugned judgment on grounds of alleged suppression of facts or otherwise. The allegations of suppression of material facts or misrepresentation by other parties in the said writ petition cannot be a ground for entertaining review application by a stranger to the original lis. Furthermore, it is contended by learned counsel for the respective respondents that the impugned judgment was passed after due consideration of all relevant material placed on record by the parties before the Court at that time, and the scope of the project including restrictions on land use were adjudicated in earlier proceedings involving the concerned parties and are binding on them. The 5 contention that the present activities amount to illegal commercial constructions is misconceived and premature as the respondents are fully committed to comply with all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and any violations, if at all, would be subject to separate proceedings initiated by appropriate authorities. Therefore, in light of the above submissions and in the interest of judicial discipline and finality, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the present petition filed by the petitioner as not maintainable and devoid of merit. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking reconsideration of the order dated 12.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 2479 of 2020. The petitioner contends that certain prior judgments, which impose restrictions on commercial use of land and were rendered by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, were not brought to the attention of this Court, resulting in an erroneous order. 6. Upon perusal of the record and submissions, it is noted that the petitioner herein was not a party to the writ petition W.P.(C.) No. 2479 of 2020 against which the present review petition is filed. It is a settled legal principle that the jurisdiction to review an order is restricted to parties to the original proceedings or those aggrieved by such order. A review petition is not maintainable when filed by a stranger to the lis. The grievance of petitioner essentially relates to alleged illegal commercial constructions being carried out in violation of conditions imposed in earlier judgments in other proceedings involving different parties. However, this Court in the impugned judgment was seized of 6 W.P.(C.) No. 2479 of 2020 involving other parties and rendered its order after considering all relevant material placed before it. The contention that facts were suppressed or that there has been miscarriage of justice cannot be entertained in a review petition by a non-party. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Murali Sundarm vs. Jotibai Kannan and Others, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 515 has held that a review is not an appeal, it can only correct errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-evaluate evidence or re-argue the case. The High Court had wrongly acted beyond its jurisdiction by reviewing and overturning its own final judgment without such an error. The original judgment was restored. Relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference : “16. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC are required to be referred to? In Perry Kansagra [Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753] this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a 7 judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. 17. After considering a catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC this Court had summed up as under : (Perry Kansagra case [Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753] , SCC pp. 768-69, para 15.1) “15.1. ‘33. … “… (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” ’ (As observed in : Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, p. 675, para 33)” It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can 8 hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. 18. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. [Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 788] , it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC read with Section 114CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC.” 8. In the light of above, the appropriate remedy to the petitioner, if any, lies in initiating independent proceedings or filing a writ petition challenging the alleged unauthorized constructions by the respondents, rather than seeking review of an order passed in a litigation to which the petitioner was not a party. 9. In view of the above, this review petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed at the threshold. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna