Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Mohammad Asgar on 22 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/4
2025:CGHC:18461
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 49 of 2025
(Arising out of the order passed in WPC No. 4582/2024 dated 12.09.2024)
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Public Works
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur
(C.G.)
2. Collector Raipur (Land Acquisition Branch) Collectorate Raipur (C.G.)
3. Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur District
- Raipur (C.G.)
4. Chief Engineer Publice Works Department Raipur Zone Sirpur Bhawan
Parisar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
5. Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Circle No. 1 Raipur
District - Raipur (C.G.)
6. Executive Engineer Public Works Department Division No. 3 Nava Raipur
Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicants/Respondents
versus • Mohammad Asgar S/o Late Shir Mohammad Rashid Aged About 66 Years R/o K.K. Road Moudhapara Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant/ Petitioner For Applicants : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 22/04/2025
1. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in WPC No. 4582/2024, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition directing Respondents No. 4 to 6 therein to take necessary steps for compliance of the letter dated 23.04.2024 of the Land Acquisition Officer, SHUBHAM within specified time.
DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2/4
2. Learned counsel for applicants-State would submit that the land bearing khasra No. 290 situated at village Parsulidih, Tahsil and District Raipur was acquired and an award was also passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 15.03.2007, however, the land bearing khasra No. 290/10 stated to be owned by non-applicant was not the subject matter of the acquisition and therefore he is not entitled for compensation. This fact revealed when non- applicant submitted a representation for compliance of the order passed by this Court and only thereafter, review is filed as the land of non-applicant was not the subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings, therefore, non- applicant is not entitled for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Learned counsel for non-applicant would submit that non-applicant has purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 03.07.1996. In the sale deed itself there is mention of land bearing khasra No. 290/10 which the non- applicant has purchased, which shows that on the date of purchase of the land, there is batankan of the land bearing khasra No. 290 and the non- applicant has purchased the specific portion of land from khasra No. 290/10. The acquisition of land by the applicants-State is thereafter and as per the award the notification under Section 4(1) and Section 17(1) was published on 16.10.2006. He submits that he is having copy of the sale deed as also the copy of award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer with him and he will file it along with covering memo. He has placed copy of sale deed as also the award dated 15.03.2007 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer for perusal of this Court during course of arguments. He also contended that as per the khasra panchshala (revenue record) of the year 2000-01, name of non- applicant is mentioned as owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 290/10 which shows that on the date of acquisition name of non-applicant is recorded in the revenue record as owner of the said land. He also pointed out that the document Annexure P-5 filed along with writ petition ie., the letter written by the SDO(R) -cum- Land Acquisition Officer that instead of 3/4 construction of road on the land bearing khasra No. 290/2 the road is constructed over the land bearing khasra No. 290/1, 290/3, 290/2 and 290/10 which was detected upon demarcation done of the existing road and accordingly considering the letters filed along with writ petition as also the letter Annexure P-10 & P-11, the writ petition was disposed of. There is no error apparent on the face of record, hence, there is no ground for entertaining this review petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The writ petition was disposed of directing Respondents No. 4 to 6 to comply with the letter dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-10). Further Annexure P-11 is an another letter of the SDO(R.) dated 22.08.2024 which appears to be in continuation of the letter Annexure P-10 ie. the reminder letter. Applicants have not filed any document to show that the applicants have taken any steps or written any letter to the SDO(R.)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer that there is some discrepancy in the letter written by the Land Acquisition Officer in any manner. The letter Annexure P-10 & P-11 are still in existence as on date, hence, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the order in view of the documents enclosed along with it.
6. 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. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 has considered the issue with regard to grounds on which review petition can be considered and it was observed that a point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review 4/4 even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous.
7. In the 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 error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case."
8. It is also not the case of the applicants that they discovered any new and important matter, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the order under review. After considering the documents available in record as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties, the order under review was passed.
9. This Court has not decided the writ petition on merits, but it was disposed of directing the Respondents No. 4 to 6 therein, to comply with letter dated 23.04.2024 of SDO(R)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, which as per submission of counsel for the Respondent/State, is still in existence. Considering the ground raised and that the State Government has not questioned the letter dated 23.04.2024 as also, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioners failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in WPC No. 4582/2024.
10. Review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn JUDGE