1 2025:CGHC:27497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 27.03.2025 Order passed on 24.06.2025 WPC No. 1418 of 2025 1 - Bharat Lal Bhoi S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Sainik Aged About 75 Years Caste- Bhoi, R/o Ward No. 16, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Ward, Purana Ravan Bhata, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil- Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Indira Paravaran Bhawan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Irrigation And Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tehsildar Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - Executive Engineer (Kodar Project) Water Resource Division, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 8 - Arjun Das Vaswani S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Das Vaswani Aged About 59 Years R/o Vaswani Niketan, Punjabi Colony Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Purchaser Of Government Land) 9 - Neeraj Jain S/o Shri Kanti Lal Jain Aged About 42 Years R/o Raipur Road, Mahasamund, Ward No. 1, P.S.- Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, (Purchaser Of Government Land) 10 - Assistant Engineer Water Resource Division, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), (Purchaser Of Government Land) 11 - Pawan Kumar Tamboli S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 66 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, P.S. And 2 Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) 12 - Khilawan Tamboli S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Tamboli Aged About 35 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) 13 - Hukumchand Tamboli S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Tamboli Aged About 32 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) 14 - Mukesh Tamboli S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Tamboli Aged About 34 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) 15 - Smt. Santosh Bai D/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 67 Years W/o Shri Teeju Ram Mahobia, R/o Shankar Nagar Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) 16 - Smt. Laxmi Bai D/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 58 Years W/o Shri Jhumuk Lal Mahobia, R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) 17 - Shilpa Tamboli W/o Shri Shailiendra Kumar Tamboli Aged About 25 Years R/o Barej Patti, Post- Lanji, District Balaghat (M.P.) (Legal Heir Of Earlier Respondent Namely Smt. Purnima Bai), (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) 18 - Kamal Kumar Tamboli S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, (Seller Of Government Land (Res. No. 11 To 18)) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For Respective Respondents : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate and Mr. Sahadev Yadav, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 3 1. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned Commissioner, Raipur Division, in relation to Government land (Khasra No. 532/1, 0.83 acres) situated in Village Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), which was acquired in 1991 for the Irrigation Department. Despite the land being Government-owned and acquired, respondent No. 8 (Arjun Das Vaswani) knowingly purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 23.09.2017 (Annexure P-5) with the assistance of some respondent authorities, and is now attempting to have his name mutated in the revenue records. Authorities have failed to act against this illegal transaction, in violation of the circular of State dated 13.03.2011. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : - “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) and further commanding the respondent authorities to comply with the personal affidavit of secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh (Annexure P-19) and the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagpal Singh's case (above mentioned) and in furtherance of circular (Annexure P-13), the land reserved for canal (as per the award, Annexure P-4) and its connected may kindly be restored by the respondent authorities and further illegal transfer thereon upon the subject land (Annexure P-10) may immediately be prevented by the respondent authorities, within time 4 frame. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the courts below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that The petitioner, a resident of Village Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 532/2, which is situated adjacent to Khasra No. 532/1 — the subject land in dispute. The petitioner asserts entitlement to all fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India, including the right to equality and equal treatment before the law. The subject land, Khasra No. 532/1 admeasuring 0.83 acres (0.336 hectares), was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Mahasamund, through an award dated 04.07.1991 for construction of a canal under the Irrigation/Water Resource Department, and the compensation was duly paid to the land losers, including Dev Singh, Biran Bai, and Kamal Kumar Tamboli. Despite the land being recorded as Government land and its public utility purpose, respondents No. 11 to 18 illegally executed a sale deed in favor of respondent No. 8, Arjun Das Vaswani, on 23.09.2017 for 51,00,000, in collusion ₹ with local revenue officials. Following this, several residents submitted complaints, leading to an enquiry by the Collector, Mahasamund, which confirmed the illegality and directed that the land be restored in the name of the State Government. Various 5 official memos and orders, including those from the SDO and Tehsildar Mahasamund, acknowledged the acquisition status of the land and affirmed it as Government property, with directions to mutate it accordingly. The Tehsildar admitted manipulation in the revenue records in his official submission. Despite these findings, respondent No. 8 continued efforts to mutate the land in his name, culminating in a series of appeals. Initially, the SDO rejected appeal preferred by respondent No. 8 against the order of Tehsildar, which declared the land as Government land. However, in a subsequent second appeal, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, by order dated 18.02.2025, quashed the earlier orders and directed the name of respondent No. 8 to be mutated in the revenue records, ignoring conclusive evidence of Government ownership. Prior to this, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 2914/2021, where the Hon’ble High Court stayed the operation of earlier remand order passed by the Commissioner and directed the Principal Secretary of the State Government to clarify the status of the land. In compliance, the Secretary filed an affidavit on 10.08.2021 affirming that the land had indeed been acquired by the Government and compensation was paid. Despite this, revenue authorities, allegedly under the influence of respondent No. 8 and others, continued to facilitate the illegal mutation process. Multiple FIRs (Nos. 239/2019, 50/2018, and 325/2022) were registered against the private respondents and complicit officials for fraud and tampering with Government 6 records. Furthermore, the actions of the respondents blatantly violate the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, and the corresponding circular dated 13.03.2011 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh mandating protection of Government lands from illegal encroachments and transactions. The present petition arises from these illegal acts, fraudulent manipulations, and blatant disregard of lawful processes and Court directives by the respondents. 3. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey and Mr. Sahadev Yadav, Advocates, appearing on behalf of the caveator / respective respondents, raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that the matter concerning the same khasra number is already sub judice before the Commissioner, and adjudication of the instant petition by this Court would amount to parallel proceedings before two forums on the same subject, which is impermissible in law. Further, the petitioner was not a party to the impugned order and, therefore, lacks locus standi to challenge the said order. The petitioner is entitled to approach the concerned forum by filing an appropriate application; however, without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, which in itself renders the petition not maintainable. Additionally, the dispute relates to land bearing khasra No. 532/1, measuring 0.336 hectares, whereas the own land of petitioner is 7 recorded as khasra No. 532/2, adjacent to the subject land situated at Village Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). Consequently, as the land of petitioner is not affected by the impugned order, the present petition is without merit and liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of petitioner is situated adjacent to the land claimed by respondent No. 8. It is alleged that respondent No. 8 is attempting to unlawfully encroach upon the land of petitioner by misrepresenting it as part of his own holding. The original recorded tenure-holder of the land bearing Khasra No. 532 was one Tularam Chandrakar. Subsequently, a portion of the said land was sold by Tularam to one Nohar Satnami. Thereafter, Nohar Satnami transferred the land bearing Khasra No. 532/1 to Dev Singh, Bittan and Kamal Kumar Tamboli (respondent No. 18 herein). The petitioner asserts that this chain of transactions culminated in the wrongful attempt by respondent No. 8 to assert rights over land that does not legally belong to him, thereby affecting the lawful possession and rights of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Learned Commissioner, Raipur Division, is not only patently illegal and arbitrary, but is also in blatant disregard of settled legal principles and binding judicial precedents. The subject land, bearing Khasra No. 532/1, admeasuring 0.336 hectares (0.83 acres), situated at Village Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), was duly acquired by 8 the State Government for public purpose, specifically for construction of a canal, vide Award dated 04.07.1991, and compensation to the tune of 18,555/- was paid to the recorded ₹ landowners. This fact has been admitted by the Government itself through a personal affidavit filed by the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, in W.P.(C) No. 2914/2021. Despite such clear acquisition and compensation, the revenue authorities, in collusion with private respondents, particularly respondent No. 8 and respondents No. 11 to 18, have entertained mutation proceedings in favour of private individuals who no longer retain any right, title, or interest over the subject land. It is further submitted that the petitioner, whose land (Khasra No. 532/2) is directly adjacent to the acquired land, has been at the forefront of efforts to protect public land from illegal encroachment. The very genesis of the order dated 08.09.2023, passed by the Tahsildar Mahasamund, declaring the land as Government land, stemmed from the complaint of petitioner. Yet, respondent No. 8, in furtherance of his illegal designs, deliberately and maliciously excluded the petitioner from subsequent proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner, despite being fully aware of the locus and interest of petitioner in the matter, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings fundamentally flawed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no provision under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, 9 permitting a second round of appeal styled as a first appeal or second appeal when earlier rounds of adjudication on the same issue have already been exhausted. Permitting such repeated appeals would lead to an endless cycle of litigation and undermine judicial finality. It is clear that the Commissioner, Raipur Division, while passing the impugned order, has attempted to override the personal affidavit filed by the Secretary of the State and the binding directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in its earlier order dated 16.06.2023, wherein the Tahsildar was directed to pass a final order. Crucially, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, has categorically held that Government land and land reserved for public utility purposes cannot be alienated or encroached upon, and the State is duty- bound to take immediate steps to restore such lands. Pursuant to these directions, the State of Chhattisgarh has issued a circular dated 13.03.2011, directing strict compliance for recovery of Government and public utility lands. The respondent authorities, despite being well aware of these directions, have acted in dereliction of their statutory duties and have allowed manipulation of public land records to facilitate unlawful gain for private parties. It is a settled principle that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Hon’ble Court has both the writ and supervisory jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors committed by subordinate authorities, particularly where actions are in 10 violation of law, contrary to public interest, and suffer from manifest illegality. In the present case, the respondent authorities have not only exceeded their jurisdiction but have acted in clear violation of binding judicial pronouncements, and in collusion with private parties to facilitate illegal encroachment of acquired Government land. Such conduct not only undermines the sanctity of the rule of law but also reduces the functioning of public authorities to a mockery. The impugned order dated 18.02.2025 is, therefore, liable to be quashed for being ultra vires, arbitrary, and passed in excess of jurisdiction, and this Hon’ble Court, in the exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, is fully empowered to issue appropriate directions to safeguard public land and prevent its illegal alienation. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the caveator / respective respondents submits that a review petition has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2025 before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, by one Hasan Mehandi and others, arrayed as applicants therein, against Arjun Das Vaswani, who is respondent No. 8 in the present proceedings. It is further submitted that the matter is currently sub judice before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, and is registered as Revenue Case No. 260-A of the year 2024–25. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Commissioner in the said proceedings and moved an appropriate application for impleadment or intervention, if so advised, to enable his concerns to be addressed within the 11 pending matter, particularly as the subject issue is already under consideration before the competent revenue authority. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the sequence of events leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025. 7. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the subject land (Khasra No. 532/1) was acquired by the Government under due process of law and compensation paid to the landowners nearly three decades ago. The land thus vests absolutely with the State for public purposes and stands recorded accordingly. Subsequent transactions, including the sale deed dated 23.09.2017 in favour of respondent No. 8, are legally void and inoperative in view of the acquisition. 8. In Jagpal Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that lands earmarked for public purposes or vested with the Government cannot be transferred or encroached upon and directed the States to ensure recovery and protection of such lands. The State of Chhattisgarh, in compliance, issued a circular dated 13.03.2011 mandating strict enforcement of the same. 9. Be that as it may, this Court also takes note of the fact that a review petition against the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 is presently pending before the Commissioner, Raipur Division (Revenue Case No. 260-A/2024–25), filed by other affected 12 parties. The matter being under active consideration by the said authority, it would not be appropriate for this Court to simultaneously exercise jurisdiction in a manner that may result in parallel and possibly conflicting adjudications. 10. It is a settled legal position that where an efficacious remedy is available before the appropriate forum and the matter is already sub judice, the High Court should exercise restraint in entertaining parallel proceedings, more so when the petitioner was not a party to the impugned proceedings and has the opportunity to seek redressal before the competent authority. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to approach the Commissioner, Raipur Division, by filing an appropriate application in the pending review proceedings to raise all such grievances and assert his rights. The petitioner is, therefore, granted liberty to do so. 12. In view of the above, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, in pending Revenue Case No. 260-A/2024–25 or any related proceeding, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such application being filed, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and shall pass a reasoned order expeditiously. 13 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated by the competent authority. 14. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge 2025:CGHC:42199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 206 of 2025 1 - Arjun Das Vaswani S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Das Vaswani Aged About 59 Years R/o Vaswani Niketan, Punjabi Colony Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bharat Lal Bhoi S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Sainik Aged About 75 Years Caste- Bhoi, R/o Ward No. 16, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Ward, Purana Ravan Bhata, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil- Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.(Original Petitioner In Wpc 1418 Of 2025) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Indira Paravaran Bhawan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Irrigation And Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, 14 Chhattisgarh. 4 - Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - Tehsildar Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 8 - Executive Engineer (Kodar Project) Water Resource Division, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 9 - Neeraj Jain S/o Shri Kanti Lal Jain Aged About 42 Years R/o Raipur Road, Mahasamund, Ward No. 1, P.S.- Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, 10 - Assistant Engineer Water Resource Division, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), 11 - Pawan Kumar Tamboli S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 66 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Khilawan Tamboli S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Tamboli Aged About 35 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 13 - Hukumchand Tamboli S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Tamboli Aged About 32 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, 15 Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 14 - Mukesh Tamboli S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Tamboli Aged About 34 Years By Caste Barai, R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, 15 - Smt. Santosh Bai D/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 67 Years W/o Shri Teeju Ram Mahobia, R/o Shankar Nagar Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 16 - Smt. Laxmi Bai D/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 58 Years W/o Shri Jhumuk Lal Mahobia, R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon 17 - Shilpa Tamboli W/o Shri Shailiendra Kumar Tamboli Aged About 25 Years R/o Barej Patti, Post- Lanji, District Balaghat (M.P.) 18 - Kamal Kumar Tamboli S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Tamboli Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Behind Ram Mandir, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate, Mr. A. N. Bhakta, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge 16 Order on Board 20.08.2025 1. This Review Petition is being filed by the Petitioner/Reviewer, who was Respondent No.8 in the original proceedings, under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, seeking a review of the order dated 24.06.2025, passed by this Court in Bharat Lal Bhoi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Bearing Writ Petition (C) No.1418 of 2018, on grounds including error apparent on the face of the record and other sufficient reasons. 2. Facts of the preset case, in brevity, are that the Review Petitioner, who was Respondent No.8 in W.P.(C) No.1418 of 2025, respectfully submits that this petition is being preferred under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court. They further advance the submission that in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, this Court appears to have inadvertently recorded a factual observation to the effect that the land bearing Khasra No. 532/1 had been acquired by the Government nearly three decades ago and that subsequent transactions, including the Review Petitioner’s registered sale deed dated 23.09.2017, are legally void. With utmost respect, it is submitted that such findings were neither supported by any conclusive documentary evidence on record nor were they the subject of adjudication in the writ petition. It is a settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that a writ court, in 17 exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily refrains from rendering conclusive determinations on disputed questions of fact that require detailed evidentiary scrutiny. In the present case, the issue as to whether the subject land was ever lawfully acquired, and whether such acquisition was concluded in accordance with law, remains pending adjudication before the Commissioner, a forum specifically empowered to examine such matters on the basis of evidence. 3. They moreover assert that the factual observation contained in paragraph 7 does not form part of the ratio decidendi of the judgment and was not essential for the disposal of the writ petition. The matter could have been decided without entering into any findings on the alleged acquisition of the land. The said remark, therefore, constitutes an obiter dictum and its inclusion, however, inadvertent has the potential to prejudice the ongoing proceedings before the Commissioner, wherein the very same issue is sub-judice. The State itself has reportedly failed to furnish complete acquisition records in those proceedings. Given that observations made by this Court, even incidentally, carry considerable persuasive value, the reference to the land being acquired "nearly three decades ago" and the registered sale deed being "legally void", in the absence of any conclusive material, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an inadvertent factual assumption, not grounded in the pleadings or evidence before the writ court, warrants correction in review under 18 the well-settled parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, in the interest of justice and to prevent any undue prejudice to the Review Petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the present appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record, particularly, the order impugned herein. 6. For the sake of convenience, it is pertinent to reproduce the observation recorded in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows: “It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the subject land (Khasra No. 532/1) was acquired by the Government under due process of law and compensation paid to the landowners nearly three decades ago. The land thus vests absolutely with the State for public purposes and stands recorded accordingly. Subsequent transactions, including the sale deed dated 23.09.2017 in favour of respondent No. 8, are legally void and inoperative in view of the acquisition.” 7. Upon careful perusal of the record and the submissions advanced, this Court finds merit in the grievance raised by the Review Petitioner. The finding regarding the acquisition of land and the validity of subsequent transactions was not the principal issue for 19 adjudication in the writ petition and did not arise from any detailed or contested evidentiary analysis. It is a well-established principle that writ courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, do not ordinarily make conclusive findings on disputed questions of fact that require adjudication by competent authorities. 8. The issue of land acquisition is pending before the Commissioner and remains disputed, the inclusion of such a factual finding, however incidental, may unduly prejudice the Petitioner’s case in those proceedings. In this context, the remark amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and falls within the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. In view of the above submissions, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, Paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 is hereby modified to the extent that the phrase “It is an admitted and undisputed fact” shall now be read as “It is contended by the learned counsel for the State”, with the rest of the paragraph and order remaining intact. 10. As a sequel, the Review petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, this order be read along with the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No.1418 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA