1 2025:CGHC:11281-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 35 of 2025 1 - Poonam Sethi D/o Shri Jagdeesh Sethi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Haldi Badi Chirmiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan -1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001 2 – Chairman, National Highways Authority of India, NHAI Head Quarter, G 5 and 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075, 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Pushpa Manikpuri D/o Late Shri Milan Das Manikpuri Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram and Post Mangla, P.S. Civil Lines, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State/Respondent : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.03.18 19:04:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 7.3.2025 1. The instant petition is filed under Section 114 CPC for review of the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2021. 2. The petitioner has made following prayer in the instant petition: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly review the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in W.A. No.09/2021.” 3. In the garb of the instant review petition, the petitioner has, in fact, assailed the order passed by this Court on merits which cannot be permitted. However, the error crept in the facts mentioned in the judgment of the writ appeal needs correction. 4. The law governing filing of review under Section 114 CPC is well settled. 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 oof said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (See Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari 3 Choudhury (Smt), (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRs. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, (2017) 4 SCC 692. 5. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the instant review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Only the typographical error, as pointed out, can be rectified. 6. As pointed out in the review petition, the order under challenge in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2021 was the order dated 29.6.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer. This order was not passed by the Patwari as stated in the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed in the writ appeal. 7. Hence, the error is corrected as under: (i) In the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2021, in the beginning sentence of paragraph 24, after the words ‘discovered by the’, the word “Patwari” is substituted by the words “Sub- Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer”. 8. During the course of argument, though learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to demonstrate various aspects in the matter, however, nothing could be established by him to 4 show that there is requirement of review of the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2021. The discrepancy pointed out in respect of the authority who passed the order has been rectified by substituting the word “Patwari” by the words “Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer” as mentioned above and now nothing else is required to be corrected. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to approach for the statutory alternative remedy available under the law and on the basis of that the writ appeal has already been dismissed. Now, nothing more is required to be adjudicated and no correction is left to be done. 9. There shall be no other change in the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2021. 10. This order be read along with the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.9 of 2021. 11. The instant review petition is, thus, partly allowed to the extent shown above. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gopal Singh