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
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
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
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
