1 2026:CGHC:21343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 122 of 2026 The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, District Bilaspur ... Petitioner versus 1 - Alok Lal S/o Late Shyam Lal Bhushan Aged About 50 Years R/o Magarpara Chowk, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Is Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocates. For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.05.08 18:37:20 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.05.2026 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review/recall of order dated 25/08/2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 238/2022 (The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v Alok Lal & Others). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein), through his predecessor in title, owned a piece and parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 671/1 and 674, admeasuring 0.56 acres and 0.40 acres respectively, situated at Patwari Halka No. 23, Tifra, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur. The said lands were recorded in the name of his father, who died on 02.02.2007. Subsequently, when the writ petitioner came to know about the ownership of the lands, he enquired into the matter and discovered that the review petitioner (Municipal Corporation) was in possession of the said lands without any proper legal acquisition. As a result, the writ petitioner was deprived of his property. He had initially filed a detailed representation on 16.11.2015. In response, the Corporation stated that the father of the writ petitioner, late Shyam Bhushan, had executed an agreement on 15.01.1988 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 671/1 and that the acquisition was made on the basis of mutual consent. However, by letter dated 24.09.2019, the Corporation admitted that no agreement had been executed with respect to Khasra No. 674 admeasuring 0.56 acres. According to the writ 3 petitioner, even if an agreement had been executed, it was only with respect to Khasra No. 671/1 for an area of 0.34 acres, but no consideration was ever paid and with respect to Khasra No. 674, no agreement had been executed at all. 3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.4770/2019 (Alok Lal v State of Chhattisgarh & Others) before the learned Single Judge, which was allowed vide order dated 22/06/2021 by holding thus at para 10, 11 and 12:- “10. Here in this case it would show that Municipal Corporation which is statutory body constituted under the Act while dispossessing father of the petitioner did not adhere to the prescribed statute and without payment of any compensation, the petitioner through his predecessor was dispossessed of his right to hold the property which is against the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 11. Under the circumstances, following the principles so laid down by the Supreme Court and the facts of this case, it is directed that the respondent/Municipal Corporation shall grant compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the land acquired as he has been deprived of the property without due course of law or in alternate if there is municipal/government land available he may be allotted 30% municipal/government of total acquired area of 0.96 acres. 4 12. With such observation, the petition stands allowed to the above extent” 4. Against the said order, the Municipal Corporation approached this Court by filing writ appeal bearing W.A. No. 238/2022 which was disposed of by this Court holding thus at para 14, 15, 16 and 17:- “14. Turning to the merits of the matter, upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and the materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellant-Corporation to allot 30% of the acquired land to respondent No.1 in lieu of compensation, is unsustainable. The agreement dated 15.01.1988 executed by the father of respondent No.1, coupled with the uniform policy of the Corporation, clearly stipulates that the entitlement is restricted to 20% of the acquired land by way of substitution of monetary compensation. 15. We also take note of the fair concession made by respondent No.1 before this Court that he is agreeable to receive allotment of 20% of the land, and not 30%, in substitution of compensation. This concession not only brings the claim in conformity with the binding agreement and policy but also obviates the need for further adjudication on this limited aspect. 5 16. In light of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the appellant-Corporation shall allot 20% of the acquired land to respondent No.1 in terms of the agreement dated 15.01.1988 and the uniform policy of the Corporation. In case of any practical difficulty in making such allotment, the Corporation shall be at liberty to discharge its obligation by paying monetary compensation in accordance with law. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid modification and particularly in view of the fair stand taken by respondent No.1, we find no necessity to interfere with the matter any further. The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ Corporation submits that respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) obtained the order from this Court by suppressing material facts and making false statements regarding his status as legal heir and ownership of the lands in question. Pursuant to the directions passed in Writ Appeal No. 238/2022, the revenue records procured by the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur revealed that the names of the legal heirs of late Shri Shyambhushan Lal were recorded therein, whereas the name of respondent No. 1 never appeared as a legal heir. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 1 acquired 6 the lands only through a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2017, registered on 06.09.2017, and his name was recorded in the revenue records on 31.10.2017. The sale deed itself states that possession of the lands was with the vendors, namely Dr. Sharad Kumar, Minor Ankit, Minor Akansha, Jayanti Lal, Shraddha and Jaam Bai, which fact was suppressed before the Court. According top the learned senior counsel, the said new evidence was not within the knowledge of the Corporation at the time of hearing original proceedings and could not be produced despite due diligence exercised by it. He would submit that the aforesaid evidence is important and constitutes a valid ground for review. Thus, the present review petition may be allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand would support the order passed by this Court in the writ appeal and prays for dismissal of the present review petition. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review. 8. Bare perusal of the order under review, it is manifest that the writ appeal preferred on behalf of the review petitioner/Corporation through its counsel was duly heard and stood disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2025 in W.A. No. 238 of 2022. The Corporation has now appeared and seeks to re-argue the matter afresh by way of review petition. Such a course is impermissible in law, as review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. 7 9. Upon plain perusal of the order passed in the writ appeal sought to be reviewed, it is manifest that in the writ appeal Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of review petitioner who was the appellant therein whereas the present review petition has been prosecuted by Mr. R.S Marhas, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate, this variance in representation, without any satisfactory explanation or justification, renders the present review petition not maintainable. As the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record and the petition itself suffers from this fundamental infirmity, the review petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 10. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 11. 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 of said jurisdiction as that would 8 amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 12. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025 decided on 08.09.2025, reiterated the aforesaid view. 13. As an upshot, the instant review petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep