1 / 3 2025:CGHC:24439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 131 of 2025 1 - Salik Nirmalkar Shri Umend Singh, Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 202, Polsai Para, Shyam Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Office, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg District Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil - Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Revenue Inspector, R.I. Circle - Kasaridih, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Om Prakash Madhyan S/o Jairam Das Madhyan Aged About 63 Years R/o Mukt Nagar, Kasardih, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 7 - Hema Madhyan W/o Om Prakash Madhyan Aged About 56 Years R/o Mukt Nagar, Kasaridih, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.17 10:49:53 +0530 2 / 3 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. The review petitioner (Not party in the writ petition) seeks review of the order dated 05/02/2025 passed in WPC No.729/2025. 2. The main ground urged by the review petitioner is that the writ petitioners obtained the order from this Court by concealing the material facts and also obtained fresh demarcation order on the basis of false statement. 3. Bare perusal of the order dated 05/02/2025, which is sought to be reviewed herein, it is apparent that this Court had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Tahsildar, Durg to take steps on the application submitted by the writ petitioner and conduct the demarcation within a period of 45 days from the date of the said order. 4. There is no other ground pointed out by the Review Petitioner showing any manifest error on the record. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the review petitioners have not produced any ground for review. 5. It appears that the Review Petitioner by presenting of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not 3 / 3 permissible and tenable in law. 6. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the Review Petitioners should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}. 7. Be that as it may, the review petitioner is at liberty to apprise the Tahsildar, Durg, to whom the direction was issued by this Court for taking necessary appropriate steps on the application filed by the writ petitioner, in such eventuality the Tahsildar, Durg is directed to consider the objection, if any, raised by the review petitioner, in respect of proceedings, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties, the application for demarcation filed by writ petitioner be considered in accordance with law and pass necessary order on the said application. 8. Accordingly, the Review Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar/ Gowri