1 CGHC010276052026 2026:CGHC:36455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 230 of 2026 1 - Shirish Pandey S/o Late Shri S.P. Pandey Aged About 64 Years R/o Nirala Nagar, In Front Of Raja Hotel, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Ashish Pandey S/o Late Shri S.P. Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Nirala Nagar, In Front Of Raja Hotel, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Girish Pandey S/o Late Shri S.P. Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Nirala Nagar, In Front Of Raja Hotel, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Building Officer Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Shyam Kashyap S/o Shri Shambhu Prasad Kashyap Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. -40, Nirala Nagar, In Front Of Emerald Hotel, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.19 17:16:38 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that the review petition may kindly be allowed and orders dated 30.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be reviewed, in the interest of justice and also take necessary actions against the petitioner (Shri Shyam Kashyap) for deliberately hiding the facts.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 30.06.2026 passed in WPC No. 3178 of 2026 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, as respondent No. 5 had suppressed material facts regarding the earlier complaints made by him, which had already been duly enquired into by the Municipal Corporation on 17.10.2024 and 20.06.2025 and were found to be without substance. It is further submitted that the petitioners had placed on record documents evidencing their lawful title and possession over the property, as well as the sanctioned constructions and subsequent repair and levelling work, which were not duly considered while issuing the direction 3 for enquiry. Learned counsel therefore submits that, in view of the prior proceedings and findings of the competent authority, the direction for a fresh enquiry was issued on a misapprehension of facts and constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. It is accordingly prayed that the order dated 30.06.2026 be reviewed and the directions issued therein be recalled, in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 5. 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 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 4 SCC 692). 6. The grounds raised by the review petitioners in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed in limine. 8. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju