h- ^ RS ,NT8 1. Smt. Anita Smgh \V/o AJAay Raj, aged about 35 VcSTS. iTG-'O ^.i\. 3.^ VdlilllK.l ^•-^lllDSClK.ST AW&3I1, 1"'. Ravishankar Shukl Nasar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 2. Smt. Suman Bareth W/o Rameshwar Bareth. ased a rut 21 years, R'o Q.N. 84, Vahriiki Aiubedkai- 3 Awash, P. Ravishankar Shukl Nasar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Smt. Shvani Bai W/o Naravan Sahu, a.aed about 35 years, R./O Q. N. 47, Vamiiki Airibedkar Awash- P. Ravishankar Shukl Nas.ar. Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Smt. Geeta Bareth W7o Jasdish Baretli. aeed about 45 years, R,/o Q. N. 65 Vakiiiki Ainbedkar Awash, P. Ravishankar Shukl Naear, Korba. Distt. Korba (C.G.) 5, Smt. Kara Bai W/o Laxman Das Mahant. aeed about 40 years, R'o Q.N. 95 Valmiki Ainbcdkar Awasb. P. Ravishankar Shukl Naear. Korba. Distt. Korba(C.G.) 6. Smt. Hiramaniva Kumhar W/o Amar Sin.sh K.uuiliar, aged about 35 yeai's, R/o Q.N. 53 Valmiki Ambedkar Awash, P. Ravishnakar Shukl Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 7. Smt. Boond Kunwer Chauhan, W/'o Late Murari Chauhan, aged about 48 years, E/o Q.N. 31 Valmiki Ambedkar Awash. P. Ravishankar Shukl Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba fC.G.)) 1. Municipal Corporation. Korba. Through. The .G. Conmiissioaer, Korba, Distt. Korba C.i 2. State of Cbiiattisgarh 'lTn-ough Secretanr Department of Local GovcriMnetit, D.K.S. Shawan. Raipur C.G. APPLICATION FOR REV1EW OF ORDERDATED31,OS.20Q7 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION N0. 411/2006 SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K- AEarihotri, J. /•Paqcar! nn -2 1 sr^nv nf n"tnK"r 7nft7 1 J'iLijiBUU L7II J 1 i.UtV Vi t^'iriliJi/'^'l < —rW/ v ) 1. This review oetition is considered in the Chamber under the provisions of Rule 76^2^ ofthe Hiah Court ofChhattissarh RuSes, 2005. 2. I.A. No. 1, this is an application for condonation ofdelay. The application is ordered as oraved for. fc \/s Tae writ petitioner no. 8, 2, 11.4, 3. 12 and 13 have tiled this review petition seekine review ofthe order dated 31.08.2007 passed bv this Court in W.P. No. 411 of2006. The petitioners have filedthis review petition onthe sround tliat allotment of the altemative site was to be done on lotterv basis. The auarters which are in possession ofthe review petitionera were allotted to the other persons. The petitioners have been residins in the present accomniodation since the vear 2002. This Court, in fhe order dated 31.08.2007 passed in W.P. No. 411/2006. have considered all the .a-ounds and it was held that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation. The review netitioners and other writ petitioners have failed to produce anv document to establish their legal occupation in the houses in Valmiki Ambedkar Colonv. Even m the review petition. the review petitioners have not produced anv document. The review petitioners alonewith others have been allotted altemative aceommodation on pavment of a nominal amount and some ofthe occupants ofValmiki Ambedkar colony have ah-eady shifted in the altemative accommodation as described in document Annexure R/2-2, aiinexed to the writ petition. The review petitioners have not pointed out anv manifest error on the record and the petitioners have not fi.irther broueht mto the notiee. anv new fact which could not be oroduced earlier despite dilieent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceediiies are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, even in exercise of review iurisdiction bv the High Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. The applicants have not produced any new ground for review, except the same sround which has been considered and decided m the writ petition. Applying the well settled principles of law to the present case, there is no sround available forreview ofthe order dated 31.08.2007. Underthe sarb of the review petition, the petitioners seek an opportunity to argoe the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the sa.me is not sustamable in law. As a result and in view ofthe foreeoine. this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. — Satish K. Agnihotri Judge