1 CGHC010289812026 2026:CGHC:37739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 232 of 2026 Shri Sanjay Kumar Rathore (In Person) S/o Late Jadhbharat Rathore Aged About 42 Years Resident Village Sonsari, Police Station- Mulmula, Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Shriman Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shriman Collector Mahoday District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Shriman Mukhya Karyapalan Adhikari Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Shriman Sub-Divisional Magistrate Akaltara District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Shriman Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Shrimati Patwari Sonsari P.H.N. 21 R.N.M. Nariyra, Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Shriman Sachiv Gram Panchayat Sonsari Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Shriman Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sonsari Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 9 - Shrimati Madhuri Rathore Janpad Sadhsya Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.25 10:24:16 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Rathore, in person For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respective respondents : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking review/clarification of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3165 of 2024. The petitioner has also sought certain directions against the respondent authorities on the allegation that an incorrect report was placed before this Court in the contempt proceedings. 2. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that he had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.3165 of 2024 concerning the alleged discharge of sewage water from the houses situated in the locality and its flow towards his privately owned land. According to the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 08.05.2025 and the authorities were directed to take appropriate steps so as to prevent waterlogging over his private land. It is submitted that although the tenor and substance of the order were in favour of the petitioner, a specific direction that the sewage water emanating from the houses of the locality should necessarily be 3 discharged into the Government drain has not been incorporated in the operative portion of the order. 3. The petitioner further submits that, taking advantage of the absence of such specific direction in the operative portion of the order dated 08.05.2025, the respondent authorities have allegedly misinterpreted the order and have failed to ensure proper drainage of the sewage water. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing contempt proceedings, but the same came to be dismissed on the basis of a report submitted by the authorities, which, according to the petitioner, contained incorrect and misleading facts. 4. The petitioner has referred to various documents, including the revenue records relating to his private land bearing Khasra Nos.771/3, 771/4, 769/3 and 769/5, the reports and communications issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Chief Executive Officer, Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat, the joint inspection report, the map prepared by the Revenue Inspector and Patwari and photographs of the Government as well as private land. On the basis of these documents, the petitioner submits that the sewage water from the locality is in fact flowing towards Government land and that a proper drain can be constructed over Government land to prevent the sewage water from entering his private property. 4 5. The petitioner has also questioned the correctness of the inspection report dated 19.09.2025, contending that he was neither informed about the inspection nor was present at the time of inspection and that the report contains incorrect statements regarding the flow of sewage water and the presence of the Patwari and Sarpanch. It is further submitted that the authorities have themselves acknowledged that construction of a drain over Government land would resolve the problem, but the same has not been undertaken for want of funds. 6. The petitioner has also relied upon the liberty granted to him by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Contempt Case No.71 of 2026 and submits that, in view of the said liberty, the present review petition has been filed seeking clarification/modification of the earlier order dated 08.05.2025. The principal prayer of the petitioner is that a specific direction be incorporated in the order dated 08.05.2025 requiring the respondent authorities to ensure that sewage water coming from the houses of the locality is discharged only into the Government drain and that no obstruction is created in the flow of such drain. The petitioner has also prayed for departmental/legal action against the officers who, according to him, submitted a false or misleading report before this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court in review is limited. A review petition is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be entertained merely for the purpose of re- appreciating the facts or seeking a different relief on the basis of the same material which was available at the time of adjudication of the original proceedings. The jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised only when the petitioner demonstrates an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced earlier, or any other sufficient reason of a nature analogous to the grounds specifically contemplated under the said provision. 9. It is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is extremely limited. Review is permissible only to correct a manifest error or an error apparent on the face of the record. Re-appreciation or re- evaluation of evidence, reassessment of facts, or substitution of one conclusion for another amounts to appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible in review proceedings. (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 6 others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 10. Very recently in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 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 CPC. (Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, (1995) 1 SCC 170). 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. (Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma, 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692 7 (1979) 4 SCC 389). 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. (Pursion Devtu. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715). 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. (Lily Thomas Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224). 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered, (Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663). Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. (Shivdev Singh State of Punjah, AIR (1963) SC 1909).” 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 08.05.2025. The grievance essentially is that a particular direction, which according to the petitioner ought to have been issued by this Court, has not been incorporated in the operative portion of 8 the order. Such a grievance, by itself, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 12. It is also significant that the petitioner is, in substance, seeking a fresh and additional direction requiring the authorities to ensure that all sewage water emanating from the houses of the locality is discharged into the Government drain and that no obstruction is created therein. Granting such a direction in the present review proceedings would not amount to correcting an apparent error in the earlier order; rather, it would amount to enlarging the scope of the relief granted in the original writ petition. Such an exercise falls beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction. 13. The documents relied upon by the petitioner, including the revenue records, inspection reports, maps, communications of the local authorities and photographs, relate primarily to disputed factual aspects concerning the actual flow of sewage water, the availability and alignment of the Government drain, the obstruction, if any, and the feasibility of construction of a drain over Government land. These matters cannot be adjudicated afresh in a review petition merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the manner in which the authorities have subsequently dealt with the issue. 14. The petitioner has also placed considerable reliance upon the alleged incorrectness of the report submitted by the authorities in 9 the contempt proceedings. However, the correctness or otherwise of such subsequent report is a matter distinct from the question whether the order dated 08.05.2025 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Even assuming, without expressing any opinion, that the petitioner has a grievance regarding the correctness of the report, such grievance cannot furnish a ground for reviewing the original order unless the statutory parameters for exercise of review jurisdiction are otherwise satisfied. 15. It is equally relevant that the petitioner seeks initiation of departmental or legal action against the concerned officers on the allegation that a false and misleading report was submitted before this Court. Such a prayer requires a proper factual foundation and appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The review jurisdiction cannot be converted into an enquiry into the alleged conduct of the officers, particularly when the alleged acts are subsequent to the order sought to be reviewed. 16. The petitioner has referred to the liberty granted in Contempt Case No.71 of 2026 for filing the present review petition. Such liberty enables the petitioner to invoke the appropriate jurisdiction of this Court; however, the grant of liberty does not dispense with the requirement of establishing the grounds contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The maintainability of the review petition and the merits of the grounds 10 raised therein are required to be examined independently in accordance with law. 17. Having considered the entire matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not demonstrated any discovery of new and important matter or evidence, any error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient ground warranting review of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3165 of 2024. 18. The prayer for incorporating an additional direction in the earlier order regarding mandatory discharge of sewage water into the Government drain would, in substance, amount to seeking a fresh substantive relief and modification of the original order rather than correction of any apparent error. Such relief cannot be granted in exercise of the limited jurisdiction of review. 19. It is, however, observed that dismissal of the present review petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy available to him in law in respect of any subsequent action or inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, including any grievance concerning the disposal of sewage water, construction or maintenance of a Government drain, or any alleged violation of the directions contained in the order dated 08.05.2025. 20. Needless to observe, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to pursue any independent proceedings in accordance with law against any subsequent action of the authorities or in respect of 11 any alleged incorrect report, the dismissal of the present review petition shall not come in his way. 21. For the foregoing reasons, no ground for review of the order dated 08.05.2025 is made out. Accordingly, Review Petition No.232 of 2026 is dismissed. 22. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's allegations regarding the actual flow of sewage water, the correctness of the inspection report or the feasibility of construction of a drain over Government land. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh