1 2026:CGHC:14730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 418 of 2025 1 - Anjorilal S/o Shri Devprasad Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Jagannath S/o Firturam Mahilange Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Devlal S/o Firtu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Jagdish S/o Firtu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Mukesh Kumar S/o Devprasad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Devprasad Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Vrinda Bai D/o Devprasad Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Savitri D/o Devprasad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2 9 - Brihaspati Bai D/o Devprasad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Land Acquisition Officer Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa. Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Project Manager Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Lambardar S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Tijmat W/o Late Ramlal Aged About 80 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village- Hardi Vishal, Tahsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to3 & 5/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, GA For Respondents No. 6 & 6 Shri Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate 3 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 30/03/2026 The present Review Petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review/recall of the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4378/2025. 2. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of, granting liberty to them to avail appropriate remedy under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land of the petitioners has already been acquired and utilized by the respondent authorities. The Compensation has been awarded but not paid. He submits that the petitioners, being poor agriculturists, are suffering grave financial hardship and irreparable loss. It is contended that the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the face of record and requires reconsideration. 4. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the present review petition and submits that the present Review Petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in law, as the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4378/2025 has already attained finality. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited, and unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the order cannot be reviewed. It is submitted that no such error has 4 been pointed out by the petitioners. The petitioners are attempting to re- agitate the very same issues, which were already considered and adjudicated by this Court while disposing of the writ petition. This Court, in its earlier order, has already granted liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate statutory remedy under the relevant provisions of law, and therefore, the present review petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. No new facts or material have been brought on record, nor has any mistake or error apparent been demonstrated, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Thus, the relief sought by the petitioners virtually amounts to rehearing of the writ petition on merits, which is impermissible under review jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy, and instead of availing the same, they have filed the present review petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 6. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. It is well settled that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked to rehear the matter on merits. The power of review can be exercised only in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important matter, or any other sufficient reason akin thereto. 7. In the present case, it is evident that the writ petition filed by the petitioners has already been considered and decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4378/2025 and after due consideration, granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority under the relevant 5 statutory provisions. The grounds urged in the present review petition are nothing but a reiteration of the submissions already made and considered at the time of disposal of the writ petition. 8. No error apparent on the face of record has been demonstrated by the petitioners. The petitioners are, in fact, seeking re-hearing of the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. 9. The Supreme Court has consistently held that review proceedings cannot be converted into an appeal, nor can the Court sit in judgment over its own order merely because another view is possible. Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the view that the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4378/2025 does not suffer from any apparent error warranting interference. The liberty granted to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy remains intact. The present review petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present Review Petition. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.01 12:53:40 +0530