HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH ' BILA$PUR Review Petition No. 16 of 2009 (Application for Recamngl Review of the omer dated 19.2.2009 paased in W.P.(C) No. 656,12009) (By Circulation in Chambei‘ of Hon’bie Ehri Satieh K. Agiihotri, J) ‘IUDGMENT 86 ORDER (Pa55e& on this 23rd (iay of Maxch, 2009) 1. This naview petition is considered in Chamber in View of the provisions of sub ruie (2) of Rule 90, under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The petitioner seeks recalling/review of the order dated 19th F‘ebruaiy, 2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 656 of 200$} ( ’1‘. K. ‘1‘iwan' Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8:. others), on the ground that the respondent No.5/'l‘ahsi1dar made a false statement before this Court on 19th February, 2009 that the appropriate steps would be taken to recall the impugned order Petitioncir T. K. ’1‘iwari, S/o Shri N. P. ’I‘iwari, ageci about 42 yems, R/o Plot No. 68, Su‘cet No.C, Triveni Nagar (Smrifi Nagar), Bhiiaj, Disuict Durg, Chhattisgarh Vexsus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Thmugh Sticwtary, Home Department, DKS Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhat’dSgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Buildmg, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Sujata Hari, W/o Shn' K. Hari, aged about 38 yeare. 4. Shri K. Hari, S/o Not known, aged about 42 years. Both am reeidents of Street No.11, Smn’ti Nagar, Bhilai, District Burg, Chhattisgarh. 5. Tahsildar, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6. Municipal Corpoxation, Bhilai, through its Commissioner, Bhilai, Dismict Burg, Chhattisgarh. 7. Superintendent of Police, Durg, ChhattiSgarh. 8. Station House Oificer,‘ Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 9. Shri Umesh Awasthi, Assistant Subelnspector of Police, Chowki incharge. Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhat'tisgai‘h. dated 09.05.2008 and he would set: that no construction would be permitted to be done on the disputed land till disposal of Revenue Case No. 8A-68f2007—08. The prayer made in this petition is to recall the order dated 19.2.2009 and fmther to initiate enquily relatiog to contempt proceedings for giving false Statement before this Court. 3. The petitioner had tiled W.P.(C)No. 65612009, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is having a house on plot No. 68, street No.C, Triveni Nagar (Smriti Nagar), Bhiiai, Distxict Durg. Just opposite to the house of the petitioner the respondents No. 3 and 4 ( Smt. Suja’ca Han' and Shxi K. Hari) purchased a land and started construction. As per the approved town and country planning map, in front ofthe house of the petitioner i.e. between the house of the petitioner and the land of the respondents No. 3 and 4, a public road of 3O feet is pmvided but the respondents No. 3 and 4 started to encroach upon a part of that public road. Thus, the petitioner, being a vigilant citizen moved an application before the Tahsildar, objecting the act of the respondents No. 3 and 4r. 4. On 9.5.2008 (Annexure 19/9) the ‘l‘ahsildar passed stay order which was communicated to the respondent No.4 in the terms thawiim 13W use. 15 em meta—rt nae ms ts: 1m qaWwfam$ma§samWm$1§hwmn$ mwmwanmamwftbwmws imam mw ta? Wlifut m W?! WE? ” (Annexnre P/l to the writ petition). 5. On 3.2.2009 notice was issued in the Writ petition and stay on the construction, if any, was granted. The ’l‘ahsildar was summoneci to explain asto Why he has 1101 ensured compliance of thc older dated 9.5.2008. On 19.2.2009 Shri A. K. 'Ulao, Tahsildar, Durg appsared in pérson. Itwas submitted that the land in dispute is owned by private person and the sank is not a govemmsnt land, thus the order datcd 9.5.2008 (Anncxure P/ 9) was not a proper a11d legal order. It was further submitted that appropn’ate steps would be taken to recall the inmugned order dated 9.5.2008. However, it was undertaken by the ’I‘ahsildar that no construcu'on would be permitted to be done on the disputed land till disposal of the Revenue Case No. 8A- 68/ 2007—08, which shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks nom the date of receipt of a copy ofthe order. In View of the above referred facts and situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that nothing survive in the petition for adjudication. Thus, the W.P.(C} No. 656/2009 was disposed ofby order dated 19th February, 2009. Now, the petitioner has filed this wxit petition for recalling/review of the order dated 19th February, 2009. The prayer and the ground mentioned in the review petition appear to be misconceived. The grievance of the petitioner still appears to be that the respondents No. 8 and 4 have encroached upon the disputed land and they are going on construction, on the government land. If the petitioner has any grievance of whatsoever nature, he may approach appropriate forum that may be available to him under provisions oflaw. The petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the petitioner has not further brought into the Wmmwm { notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despit€ diligent effolfs mads by the petitioner. 1t is well settled pn'nciples of law that the review pmceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly comined to the scopa and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Com under Article 2’26 of the Constitution. The petitioner has not produced any ground for review. 10. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this leview petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire caee afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the erm‘re case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. ( See Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdharyl, Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and others2, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government of 'I‘.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others" and Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrot‘hennicsm &. Hydropower Ltd, and others? 11. As a result and in View of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Satish K. Agniimtri Judge ’l‘hakur Sd/— 1 2 AIR 1995 SC 455 3 AIR 2000 SC 1650 i: NR 2000 SC 85 5 (2005) 2 sec 332 (2005) 6 scc 651