1 / 3 2025:CGHC:24190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 187 of 2024 (Arising out of the order passed in WPC No. 3380/2024 dated 05.07.2024) 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chief Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Office At Seepat Road, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited Gevra Area, P.O. Gevra Project District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicants/Respondents No. 1 & 2 versus 1. Smt. Hasina Begum Ansari W/o Shri Mohammad Shah Ansari Aged About 81 Years R/o 254, Ward No. 4, Ratanpur (Nagar Panchayat) Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh …Petitioner 2. Collector Korba, at Collectorate, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh …Respondent No. 3 ... Non-applicants For Applicants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Non-applicant No. 2 : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 16/06/2025 1. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 05.07.2024 passed in WPC No. 3380/2024, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition directing Respondent-SECL therein to pass necessary orders for disbursement of calculated amount of compensation, within specified time. 2. During course of arguments, learned counsel for review petitioner raised only one ground that, the observation made by this Court in concluding paragraph of the impugned order that “petitioner will also be entitled for the interest, in accordance with law, if compensation is still not paid”, is error apparent on PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 the face of the order. He contended that as the notice was issued to the petitioner/ Respondent No. 1 and she did not turn up to accept the compensation, therefore she is not entitled for the statutory interest from the date of passing of award as provided under the Coal Bearing Act (A & D) under which the land was acquired. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed in writ petition and its record. 4. In the impugned order passed in writ petition, this court has not made any observation with respect to the merits of the claim of petitioner therein on merits, observing that the petitioner is entitled for the interest for such and such reasons, however, this Court has made observation that the petitioner will also be entitled for the interest in accordance with law. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is for the review petitioner to take decision taking note of the facts and law applicable to the facts of the case. 6. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 has considered the issue with regard to grounds on which review petition can be considered and it was observed that a point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous. 7. In the case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus: 3 / 3 “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 8. It is also not the case of the applicants that they discovered any new and important matter, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the order under review. After considering the documents available in record as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties, the order under review was passed. 9. This Court has not decided the writ petition on merits, but it was disposed of directing the petitioners/ Respondents-SECL therein, to consider the representation submitted by petitioner therein and to pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. 10. For the foregoing discussion as also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioners failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 05.07.2024 passed in WPC No. 3380/2024. 11. Review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE