1 CGHC010346092021 2026:CGHC:42543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5341 of 2021 Bhagwati Prasad S/o Late Kuleshwar Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Kunra, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4-The Tahsildar Dharsinwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Buddheshwar S/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan R/o Village Kunra, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Abram Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer For Res. No. : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.10.06 16:13:23 +0530 2 an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2021, whereby the application for review of order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P/6) passed by the learned concerned Commissioner has been dismissed stating that no any illegality in the order and the order has been passed in accordance with law which is not required to be reviewed. He further submits that he has not been given any opportunity of hearing and as such the review is required to be done. The demarcation proceedings has been done behind back of the petitioner without giving any notice to him and as such the review proceeding is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 would submit that review jurisdiction is very limited unless and until the petitioner shows any graving mistake arithmetical or any mistake which is required to be reviewed, the review order cannot be passed on the basis of merits of the case. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order of the Commissioner he should have been filed an appropriate proceeding before the concerned higher authorities and not before the authorities before whom he has filed an application for review. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments 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. 3 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) has held that review jurisdiction is a very limited jurisdiction and it should be used sparingly and it can not be taken as a regular recourse and as such considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter the order has rightly been passed which is not required interference by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ami