1 CGHC010059342021 2026:CGHC:38553-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 01.07.2026 Order delivered on 01/09/2026 Order uploaded on 01/09/2026 REVP No. 74 of 2021 1. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. A. Government Company Registered Under Companies Act. 1956, Through It's Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Santokh Singh Bains, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Geology And Mining, Indravati Bhawan, Block- IV Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Forests, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Addl. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests (L.M.) Office Of The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests Aranya Bhawan, Sector- 19, North Block, Capital Complex, Naya Raipir - 492 002 Chhattisgarh 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division East Bhanupratappur, Bhanupratappur, District North Baster Ranker Chhattisgarh 5. Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road, New Delhi- 110003 SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 6. Director (Forest Conservation Division), Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road New Delhi – 110. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Kumar Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Mittal and Mr. Chinmay Samjdhar, Advocates For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent UOI : Mr. R.K. Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General. DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Order Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 5.9.2019 passed in WPC No.1405/2018. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that petitioner has set-up a steel plant in District Durg of State of Chhattisgarh, which is widely known as Bhilai Steel Plant. Vide lease dated 01.04.1975 the competent authority has granted mining lease in favour of petitioner over an area of 938.059 hectares situated in villages Kalwar and Nagur for extraction of iron ore for the captive use of its plant. This lease was granted under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and remained valid continuously having been renewed from time to time. Petitioner applied for forest clearance for diversion of 70 hectare area of land and it was granted by 3 respondent State for a period of 10 years. However, at the time of first renewal, forest clearance for diversion of forest land was granted for an area of 17 acre only out of total 70 hectare. Vide demand notice dated 30.9.2016 respondent No.5 called upon the petitioner to deposit “Net Present Value” (NPV) towards entire leased area of 938.059, failing which petitioner had to surrender balance forest area and revised mining lease was to be signed for the area which stand diverted under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 (for short ‘the Act of 1980’). Petitioner submitted reply to the effect that NPV for 17 hectares of land for mining purpose has already been deposited and requested for forest clearance. When petitioner’s request was not acceded to, petitioner filed writ petition bearing WPC No.1405/2018 challenging the demand notice and guidelines of Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change dated 01.04.2015 inter alia on the grounds that NPV is payable for such forest land which has been diverted for non-forest use and the guidelines are contrary to Section 2 (ii), 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 as also decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed from time to time. The Court vide order dated 05/09/2018 disposed of writ petition with certain directions. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with order dated 05/09/2018 passed by this Court, petitioner has approached Hon’ble Supreme Court 4 by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) which was registered as 3489/2020, and the same was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file review petition before the High Court. Given the liberty granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner has filed present review petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under review suffers from a manifest error of law and fact. In the judgment under review, the core issues raised in writ petition were noted and outlined but the same were entirely overlooked and left completely unconsidered while arriving at its conclusion. He further submits that the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, which was brought into force w.e.f. 30.09.2018, provides for leviability of NPV and not only defines NPV but also provides as to in which fund the NPV is to be deposited. Section 2 (i) of the Act of 2016 clearly provides that ‘Net Present Value’ (NPV) is the quantification of the environmental services provided for the forest area diverted for non-forestry purpose. Thus, the NPV could only be collected for that forest area which is diverted for non-forest purpose. It is contended that NPV could have been only with respect to 17 hectare of which mining lease has been granted. However, claim of petitioner that liability to satisfy the NPV is restricted to actual of diverted area, has been turned down by recording that there is no legislation, as 5 on date, for levying of NPV. Thus, there is non-consideration of an existing and binding statute which goes to the root of the matter which constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, making the order fit for review. He next contended that the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the guidelines dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure P-7) are ultra vires to Section 2 (iii) of the Act of 1980 as it seeks to include entities like petitioner company which do not require approval of the Central Government under Section 2 (iii) of the Act of 1980 or assignment by way of lease or otherwise. However, in the order under review there is no consideration on this crucial pleading. Had the ultra vires nature of the guidelines been duly considered, the conclusion reached would have been otherwise. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause, a registered society, vs. Union of India & ors, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 667. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the order under review and submitted that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is limited and an order/ judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The error apparent in the order must be self-evident and does not require elaborate arguments. He submits that the ground 6 urged in review petition that there exists a legislation dealing with NPV, was not pleaded or argued at the time when writ petition was heard. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise new ground by way of review petition. Further referring to other grounds raised in review petition and during course of hearing, it is submitted that the same are mere reproduction of the grounds of writ petition, which were duly considered and decided while deciding writ petition. Present review petition is an attempt to re-argue the entire case again which is already decided by passing speaking order There is no error apparent on the face of record, which could attract the jurisdiction of this Court in review. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and submitted that the grounds raised by petitioner are in fact re-argument of the entire case, which is not permissible. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of writ petition as also order under review. 8. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for filing of review application. Section 114 of the Code empowers the Court to review its order if the conditions precedent laid down therein are satisfied. Review application is maintainable upon discovery of a new and important piece 7 of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record and is also maintainable on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason which would depend on facts and circumstances of the case. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to re appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. The power of review is therefore an exception to the doctrine of finality of litigation and must necessarily be exercised within narrowly defined limits. 9. In Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited 8 purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"." 10. In case of State of West Bengal and others vs Kamal Sengupta and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, Hon it was observed thus:- “15. The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self- evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22 (3) (f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. 11. In case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through Lrs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus:- “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the 9 error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 12. In case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, it was held thus:- “25. …....The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein in paragraph 9 following has been laid down: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 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”.” 13. Perusal of the contents of review petition would show that the review petitioner has filed this review mainly on the ground that it was passed without considering the material submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, though noted and the relevant law, resulting into an error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds raised in review petition are 10 the same which have already been raised in writ petition, therefore, the review cannot be filed for re-appreciation of the facts and the grounds raised in writ petition. In fact, the instant review petition on the grounds enumerated therein appears to be an appeal in disguise. A judgment / order may be wrong, erroneous, incorrect, legally untenable, etc. but nevertheless remains a valid judgment in the eyes of law against which the only course available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal against the same. In the case of Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP and Ors., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “10........A point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous.” 14. Further, it is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. 15. Keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted above and considering the grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition, this Court is of considered 11 view that review petitioner failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 5.9.2019. Being so, the review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-