Shakil Teli vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10880 MP

                                                           1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                ON THE 14 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            REVIEW PETITION No. 567 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHAKIL TELI S/O MR. SULEMAN TELI, AGED ABOUT 40
                          YEAR S, OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED H. NO. 183
                          WARD NO. 3 JOGWADA ROAD, SENDHWA DISTRICT
                          BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONERS
                          (SHRI MOHAMMAD FARAZ HASMI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          PETITIONERS)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                THE CHIEF SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
                                SACHIVALAYA DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    C O L L E C T O R COLLECTORATE         BUILDING
                                BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RANGE, 50-A
                                INCOME TAX COLONY RESIDENCY AREA INDORE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA
                                PA R I S H A D SENDHWA DISTRICT BARWANI
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI GAURAV SINGH CHOUHAN, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
                          THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission/orders this day, the court passed
                          the following:
                                                            ORDER

Heard on admission.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 7/17/2023 6:32:13 PM

2. This petition has been filed seeking review/recall/modification of the order dated 17.04.2023, passed in W.P. No.14998/2022(Shakil Teli Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has filed the erstwhile petition on the ground of violation of fundamental rights by the respondents by demolishing his house illegally and without following the due process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner may be kindly allowed and the order passed in W.P. No.14998/2022 may kindly be recalled.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of the review petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this review petition alleging that he was not granted opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. Moreover, the Court ought to have waited for the reply to be filed by the respondents and, thereafter, could have decided the case finally.

7 . According to the prayer in the writ petition itself, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to rebuild the already demolished house and to pay compensation. This Court while disposing of writ petition, came to the conclusion that the demarcation has already taken place and the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and granted opportunity to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as available under the law.

8. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 7/17/2023 6:32:13 PM

out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs. Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous.

9. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."

10. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned.

11. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

pn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 7/17/2023 6:32:13 PM