1 2025:CGHC:30065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 7 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Janjgir- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer Champa Division Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Public Works Department (Bha/s) Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants Versus 1 - Vishwanath Noniya S/o Shri Santram Noniya Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Sukulpara, P.H. No. 30, Revenue Circle Rahaud, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Shushobit Singh, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 03/07/2025 1. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 07.09.2023 passed in WPC No. 872/2021, whereby this Court considering the reply submitted by the Respondent/State therein stating that the Executive SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Engineer of Public Works Department, Champa has also submitted proposal after incorporating the corrections, before the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), District – Janjgir-Champa on 22.06.2022 and the same is pending consideration before the authority for finalizing the compensation. 2. The review petition is filed on the following grounds:- “A. Because, the order dated 07/09/2023 (Annexure A/1) has been passed without considering the relevant documents and material pertaining to the land acquisition case of the non applicant, therefore, the order dated 07/09/2023 (Annexure A/1) may kindly be recalled. B. Because, the order 07/09/2023 passed in WPC No. 872/2021 may kindly be re-called on the ground that the award was passed determining and calculating the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of land of the non applicant, but, the same was not received by the father of the non applicant and in such a situation, the non applicant would be entitled for original compensation amount alongwith interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. C. Because, once the award has been passed after the acquisition proceeding, then there is no need to initiate a fresh acquisition proceeding and accordingly the non applicant would not be entitled for fresh compensation. D. That, under the aforesaid facts and grounds, the order passed by the Hon'ble Court dated 07/09/2023 passed in W.P. (C) No. 872/2021 may kindly be recalled / reviewed, in the interest of justice.” 3. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the State submits that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department have given wrong information against whom, the show-cause notice was also issued. He made an attempt to submit that the land subject matter of writ petition was already acquired and compensation is also paid. The review petition is filed on the ground that the order has been passed without considering the relevant documents pertaining to the land acquisition case of non-applicant. 4. In the writ petition, State has filed its reply on 23.06.20213, in reply though there is mention that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Collector, however, the pleading is made that the road was constructed on the land subject matter of writ petition after acquiring under the Aapsi Krai Niti, 2016 (Mutual Purchase Policy, 2016). No document has been submitted 3 with the reply to prove that the land of the petitioner therein was subject matter of land acquisition proceedings on purchase under Mutual Purchase Policy, 2016. 5. Along with the reply to writ petition, State submitted a letter dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure R/1) written by the Applicant No. 3/Respondent No. 3 to the Applicant No. 2/Respondent No. 2 to initiate the proceedings for purchase of the land under the Mutual Purchase Policy, 2016, after making corrections. Considering that document (Annexure R/1) i.e. letter dated 22.06.2021, order dated 07.09.2023 was passed in the writ petition and it was disposed of. 6. In Ground C of the review petition, there is again a pleading that the award has been passed after the acquisition proceedings, however, copy of the award has not been placed either in the writ petition or in the review petition. 7. This Court considering the letter dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure R/1) filed along with the reply in the writ petition has disposed of the writ petition with an observation to conclude the proceedings of calculating the amount of compensation and also making payment of the same to the petitioner within the time specified. 8. It is well settled law that, in the garb 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. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has observed thus: “8. It is well settled 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, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047], speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3): 4 It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] , there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.” 10.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: “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.” 11. 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. 12.This Court has not decided the writ petition on merits, but it was disposed of directing the petitioners/State therein, to finalize the proceedings initiated for calculating the amount of compensation and making payment of the same to the petitioner within a further period of five months from the date of passing of the impugned order. No document is filed to demonstrate that the stand taken in reply is contrary to the record of Respondent/State. 5 13.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 07.09.2023 passed in WPC No. 872/2021. 14.Review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey