1 CGHC010291542019 2026:CGHC:38915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3232 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ( The Petitioners No. 1 And 3 Were Not Party Before The Board Of Revenue But Being Necessary Parties Are Arrayed As Such). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - (Deleted) Smt. Shashi Prabha Devi Wd/o Thakur Vishwaraj Singh (Died) (Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 30.04.2025) 2 - Shri Yogeshwar Raj Singh S/o - Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, R/o - Moti Mahal, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Manjari Devi W/o - Rudradeo Singh, D/o - Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, R/o - Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh 4 - Smt. Tawarika Devi @ Vasundhara Devi W/o - Sanjay Singh, D/o -Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, R/o - Bisau Palace, Hotel Chandpol Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/ State : Shri Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Other Respondents : None. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. The petitioners/ State have challenged the order dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur in revenue proceedings and original order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case No. 430/A-1/2004- 05 (Annexures-P/1 & P/2). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the father of respondent No.2, namely Thakur Vishwaraj Singh moved an application under Section 57(2) read with Sections 113 and 114 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer claiming right over survey Nos. 99 to 131 of village Kawardha, comprising 30 khasras, and survey Nos. 70 to 82 of village Saigona, The relevant portion of the application is reproduced hereinbelow: “(अ) अनुविभागी य अधि कारी द्वारी विनुका 26.9.1989 ए कालेक्टरी द्वारी विनुका 26.11.2001 का आश द्वारी आका का ग्राम का का भाविम खनु 113, 114, 121 तथा 122 तथा ग्राम सै$गीनु का भाविम खनु 72, 78, 79, 80 औरी 82/2 का स्म मनु गीय है$, उसै यथात रीख जात है$ तथा उक्त आश अवितम ए सैभा परी बं नुकारी है-, क्य.विका स्म विनुगीरीनु कालेक्टरी द्वारी विनुरीस्त का जा चुका है$। (बं) ग्राम का का खनु 102, 103, 104 ए 105 परी रीजामत सैविहैबं ए परिरीरी का काब्जा अविभाधिलेधिखत है$, इसै प्रकारी खनु 106, 107 ए 108 तलेबं प$ट है$ तथा का$ वि5यत म6 काब्जा रीजामत सैविहैबं का र्ष 1954 सै जा है$ ए इसै तलेबं सै रीजामहैले का पनु का आपवित हैत है$। विमसैले बंबंस्त का अनुसैरी इसै शसैनु म6 वि8त नुहै9 विकाय गीय तथा नुगीरी पधिलेका का अविभालेख 3 म6 अभा रीजामत सैविहैबं का हैका म6 इन्द्राजा अविकात है-। खनु 112 परी मरीजा का काब्जा है$, धिजासै परी <क्ष रीजामत द्वारी लेगीय गीय है- तथा काब्जा र्ष 1927-28 सै अविकात है$। इसै प्रकारी खनु 110, 115 तथा 116 महैले का ओरी जानु का रीस्त है$ तथा खसैरी म6 र्ष 1954 सै रीजामत का काब्जा बंतय गीय है$। अत? धिलेस्ट आ5 इन्न्टरी म6 बंतय गीय आईटम 1 ए 2 म6 उल्लेधिखत उपरीक्त खसैरी कामका का रीकाबं परी आका ए उसैका परिरीरी ले. का काब्जा मBधिखका ए स्तजा सैक्ष्य सै प्रमविDत पय जानु का कारीD उन्है6 उनुका स्म घोविर्षत विकाय जानु यग्य है$ तथा आका का इनु खसैरी कामका का जाम नु. परी आका का नुम जा कारीनु ए अविभालेख रूस्त हैत अनुविभागी य अधि कारी , का का प्रवितप्रविर्षत विकाय जात है$। खनु 108 परी ईगीहै हैनु जा है$ अतए उक्त खनु म6 धिजातनु रीकाबं परी ईगीहै जा है$, है ईगीहै है रीहैगी (सै) अन्य भाविम यथा खनु 111, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 ए 131 परी का सैबं म6 यद्यविप आका का काब्जा हैनु का उल्लेख है$ विकान्त इसै सैबं म6 काई स्तजा प्रमD नुहै9 है$ तथा स्तजा. सै इसैका पविI नुहै9 हैत । अतए उक्त खसैसै नुबंरी. परी आका का अमन्य विकाय जात है$" 3. The application so moved was rejected by the said authority vide order dated 20.10.1982. Late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh preferred an appeal before the Collector against the said order, which was allowed vide order dated 26.8.1983, and the matter was remitted back to the Sub- Divisional Officer for deciding the same afresh after holding a comprehensive enquiry. The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated 26.9.1989, partly allowed the application moved by late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh and declared him to be a Bhumiswami under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code in respect of survey 4 Nos. 113, 114, 121 and 122 of village Kawardha, comprising 29.03 acres, and survey Nos. 72, 78, 79, 80 and 82/2 of village Saigona, comprising 6.13 acres, whereas his claim with regard to survey Nos. 111, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 was rejected. 4. Late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Collector in the year 2001. During the pendency of the said appeal, a suo motu revision was registered by the District Collector, Rajnandgaon, and upon creation of District Kawardha, the same was transferred to the District Collector, Kawardha. The District Collector, Kawardha, vide order dated 26.11.2001, dismissed the suo motu revision as well as the appeal preferred by late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh. 5. Late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh challenged the order dated 26.11.2001 by filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 7.2.2007, partly allowed the appeal and further declared him to be a Bhumiswami in respect of survey Nos. 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 115 and 116 of village Kawardha, relying upon documentary evidence of continuous possession. His claims concerning survey Nos. 111, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130 and 131 were rejected in the absence of documentary evidence. 6. Respondent No.2 did not assail the order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue. However, the petitioners herein challenged the said order by filing a review petition before the Board of Revenue on various grounds. The Board of Revenue considered the material 5 available on record and finally dismissed the review petition on the ground that the State had failed to point out any mistake apparent on the face of the record, vide order dated 17.10.2018. The petitioners/State have challenged the said order by filing the present petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State/petitioners would submit that if the Board of Revenue found that there was no justification for the Collector to dismiss the suo motu revision as well as the appeal, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the Collector. He would further contend that there is a categorical finding recorded by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) to the effect that the subject lands are related to Nistar and respondent No.2 or his forefathers failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove the contrary. He would further submit that, according to Section 158 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, respondent No.2 or his father failed to prove that the lands were included in the inventory list prepared under the covenant and agreement with the Central Provinces and Berar. He would also contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer wrongly entertained the application moved by late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. He would submit that, according to the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer had the authority to correct the revenue entries but had no jurisdiction to decide the Bhumiswami rights. He would further contend that the Board of Revenue, in its order dated 7.2.2007, did not consider the aforesaid facts of the matter. Therefore, a review petition was filed pointing out the mistakes committed by the Board of Revenue; however, the same 6 was also dismissed. He would submit that the review petition was filed according to provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. He would pray for allowing the present petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the grounds raised in the present petition were never raised either before the Sub-Divisional Officer or before the Board of Revenue. He would contend that the application under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was competent before the Sub-Divisional Officer and, pursuant to the order passed under the said provision, orders were passed for correction of the revenue entries. He would further argue that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue considered the documentary and oral evidence and thereafter passed orders in favour of respondent No.2 and his father. He would contend that the Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 without affording him any opportunity of hearing while dismissing the suo motu revision. It is also argued that the Board of Revenue considered this aspect and, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Collector. He would further submit that, in the review petition, the petitioners sought to re- argue the issues which had already been considered and decided by the Board of Revenue, which was not permissible under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Therefore, the Board of Revenue rightly dismissed the review petition preferred by the petitioners. 9. Learned Senior counsel would argued that initially, the application was partly allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 7 26.9.1989, which was subsequently affirmed by the Collector while dismissing the suo motu revision. He would contend that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Collector attained finality, as no appeal was preferred against either of the said orders by the State. It is further argued that, as the claim of respondent No.2 pertaining to certain survey numbers was rejected, he preferred a second appeal to challenge that part of the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and the Collector. He would submit that the review petition filed by the State was not maintainable and was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Board of Revenue. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000 (6) SCC 224 and in the matter of Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur District and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2455. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 11. Admittedly, the application moved by late Thakur Vishwaraj Singh under Section 57(2) read with Sections 113 and 114 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was partly allowed by the Sub- Divisional Officer vide order dated 26.9.1989. The part of the order whereby his claims with regard to certain survey numbers were rejected was challenged by him in an appeal before the Collector. At the same time, the District Collector registered a suo motu revision. The District Collector, vide order dated 26.11.2001, dismissed the suo motu revision as well as the appeal preferred by respondent No.2. Meaning thereby, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in 8 favour of respondent No.2 and against the petitioner was affirmed. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Collector was never challenged by the State, and the part of the order whereby the claims of respondent No.2 were granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and affirmed by the Collector attained finality. 12. Respondent No.2 challenged the part of the order whereby his claims were rejected by filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal vide order dated 7.2.2007. The petitioners herein filed a review petition in the guise of an appeal and sought to re-argue the matter. The Board of Revenue considered the grounds raised by the petitioners herein and finally dismissed their review petition on the ground that re-hearing of the matter was not permissible in the garb of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The scope of review is limited, and a party cannot be permitted to re- argue the matter. 13. Section 114 of the CPC vests the power of review in Courts, and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review petition. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him 9 at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 14. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- “15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as 10 propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied.” 15. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 16. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 11 17. In the matter of Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held that: 23. Furthermore, it is well settled that a review proceeding cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. As held in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 and Parsion Devi & Others v. Sumitri Devi & Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, a review can be entertained only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The findings of the High Court are based on a comprehensive appreciation of facts and law and no such error has been demonstrated by the appellant.” 18. The Board of Revenue considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 and subsequently dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioners herein. The grounds raised during the course of arguments or in the present writ petition were never raised either before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Collector, or the Board of Revenue in the first round of litigation. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise such grounds at this stage. 19.Having considered the facts of the present case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, and the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Board of Revenue. 20.Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi