1 / 5 2025:CGHC:59982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 406 of 2025 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disater Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector District -Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Executive Engineer Water Resource Department Raigarh Division Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant(s) versus Khemraj S/o Jagbandhu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Hichchha, Tehsil Sarangarh, District -Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant/ State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.11 11:00:23 +0530 2 / 5 Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 10/12/2025 1. The review petitioners (respondents in WPC) seek review of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by this court in WPC No. 6160 of 2024 on the ground that land of the respondent/writ petitioner has already been submerged in river Mahanadi, two decades ago i.e. much before construction of Kalma Barrange. 2. The writ petition bearing WPC No.6160 of 2024 was preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein), who is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 336/1 ख admeasuring area 0.066 hectare situated at Village Hichchha, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, C.G. Earlier the writ petitioner preferred WPC No.3477 of 2023 seeking compensation towards the land which has been utilized in the construction of Kalma Barrage. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner. After disposal of the said writ petition, the respondent has started proceeding under आपसी सीहमति सी भूमिम ्ቅय नीति 2016 by issuance of a public notice dated 13.06.2024 to purchase the land of the petitioner by mutual consent. The petitioner again preferred writ petition by objecting the said proposal of purchase under mutual consent scheme, as he is not willing to give consent because his land has already been utilized and sub-merged since the year 2011 and he will be deprived to get interest under the delay payment of compensation as provided under the Act, 2013 (for short the Act of 2013). 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 3 / 5 15.1.2025, which is sought to be reviewed, in the following terms : 5. It appears from the fact raised by the petitioner that the public notice was issued on 13.06.2024 to purchase the land in question which is owned by the petitioner as the said land has been sub-merged in the water reservoir in the year 2011. The petitioner by apprehending that he will be deprived to get interest under the delay payment of compensation as provided under the Act, 2013, he objected the same and refuse to sale the land in question under the Scheme 2016. Hence, as the petitioner already submitted a refusal letter to the Collector, the Collector shall decide the same within a period of 30 days and it is directed that the Collector shall take appropriate steps within a period of 30 days for acquisition of the land in question in accordance with law. 4. Now the State/review petitioner has preferred this review petition with a plea that on 16-12-2022 the demarcation was conducted wherein it was found that the land belonging to the petitioner has already submerged in river Mahanadi and as the writ petitioner has concealed the said fact, hence the order passed in writ petition and as such the same may be recalled/reviewed. 5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on 13-6-2024 a public notice was given to purchase the land of the petitioner under the Scheme 2016 and the writ petition was filed by the petitioner objecting the proposal to purchase the land on mutual consent 4 / 5 with the apprehension that the petitioner will be deprived from the interest on the acquired compensation as per Section 18 of Act of 2013. 6. The review petition filed by the State on the ground that the writ petition was disposed of at motion stage and they were not got the chance to file reply whereas the writ petition was disposed of in presence of both the counsel wherein the following contention was made by the learned State counsel : 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, as the petitioner has objected and refuse to give consent under the Scheme 2016 vide (Annexure P/2) dated 02.07.2024, the same will be considered by the competent authority i.e. the Collector/ respondent no. 2 within a period of 30 days and the same shall be decided and proper steps shall be taken for acquisition of the land in question in accordance with law. 7. The review petition on a new fact and ground that the subject land has already been submerged in river Mahanadi since two decades ago cannot be a ground to recall/review the order dated 15-1-2025 passed in WPC No.6160 of 2024 because if that was the fact then why the public notice dated 13-6-2024 was issued to purchase the subject land on mutual consent under the Scheme, 2016. It appears from the fact that, when the petitioner objected the purchase proposal of land under the आपसी सीहमति सी भूमिम ्ቅय नीति 2016 of the State, the instant review petition has been filed with a new fact and ground, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 5 / 5 8. 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. 9. 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 permissible and tenable in law. 10. 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}. 11. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti