GRAM PANCHAYAT TANDWA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010338772026 2026:CGHC:45427
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
TIWARI
Date:
2026.10.28
18:00:47
+0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 307 of 2026
Gram Panchayat Tandwa Through Sarpanch Smt. Yogita Verma W/o
Krishna Kumar Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tandawa, Tahsil
Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Revenue Inspector, Tandwa 04, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Collector, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Tahsildar, Tilda Neora, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Chief General Manager Land Acquisition Branch C.S.I.D.C. Distt-
Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (C.S.I.D.C.),
Through Its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.
1 Telibandha, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
7 - Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited, Village Tandwa, Tahsil Tilda
Neora, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma
For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
28.10.2026
1. By filing the present review petition, the review petitioner seeks
review and recall of the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by this Court
in WPC No. 3672/2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
petitioner, Gram Panchayat Tandwa, represented through its

2
Sarpanch, was dismissed as not pressed, and further seeks
restoration of the writ petition to its original file and number for
consideration on merits.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the
order under review was passed on the basis of the submission made
on behalf of the respondents that an alternative Nistari pathway was
available to the villagers and, in view of the said submission, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in the original writ petition stated
that he did not wish to press the petition. It is contended that, in fact,
no effective alternative Nistari pathway has been provided to the
villagers and that the road referred to by the respondents is merely a
canal maintenance road belonging to the Water Resources
Department, which cannot be equated with the existing public/Nistari
pathway situated over Government land bearing Khasra No. 508/1,
admeasuring 9.807 hectares, at Village Tandwa, Tahsil Tilda-Neora,
District Raipur. Learned counsel further submits that the original writ
petition was instituted for protection of the public pathway, which had
been in existence and use for a considerable period and was being
used by the villagers for accessing their residential houses,
agricultural lands and other essential facilities. In support of the said
contention, reliance has been placed upon the revenue records,
Khasra Panchshala, maps and resolutions passed by the Gram
Panchayat from time to time regarding the construction and
maintenance of the pathway through MGNREGA and Panchayat
funds.

3
3. Learned counsel further submits that, before making the statement
for not pressing the original writ petition, no resolution authorising
withdrawal of the petition had been passed by the Gram Panchayat
and the villagers were also unaware of the fact that the petition was
not being pressed. It is contended that the submission made on
behalf of the respondents regarding the availability of an alternative
Nistari pathway was not supported by any relevant record and that
the review petitioner had no effective opportunity to verify the
correctness of the said submission. Learned counsel also submits
that subsequent developments in the area, including the construction
of industrial establishments, colony premises, boundary walls and
internal roads, have further aggravated the difficulties faced by the
villagers. It is, therefore, contended that the grievance raised in the
original writ petition continues to subsist and affects a large number
of villagers, students, employees, patients and other persons who
were using the pathway. On these grounds, learned counsel prays
that the order dated 10.07.2026 be recalled and the original writ
petition be restored for adjudication on merits.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the review petition and
submits that the order under review was passed after recording the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties. It is contended that, during the hearing of the
original writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner himself made
a statement that, in view of the availability of an alternative Nistari
pathway, he did not wish to press the petition. Accordingly, this Court
dismissed the writ petition as not pressed. Learned State counsel

4
submits that the review petitioner cannot seek recall of the order
merely on the ground that the consequences of the statement made
before this Court are now considered unfavourable or that a different
course of action ought to have been adopted. It is further contended
that the grounds raised in the review petition essentially seek
reconsideration of the dispute on merits, which is beyond the
permissible scope of review. Accordingly, dismissal of the review
petition is prayed for.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the principal ground
urged by the review petitioner is that the order dated 10.07.2026 was
passed on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the
respondents regarding the availability of an alternative Nistari
pathway, whereas, according to the review petitioner, the said
pathway is merely a canal maintenance road belonging to the Water
Resources Department and cannot be treated as an effective
alternative to the existing public pathway. The review petitioner has
also questioned the authority of the counsel who made the statement
for not pressing the original writ petition, contending that no
resolution authorising such a course of action had been passed by
the Gram Panchayat.
It is, however, evident from the order under review that the rival
6.
submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties were duly recorded. The submission on behalf of the
respondents that the land in question had been allotted to the CSIDC

5
for industrial development and that construction had already been
undertaken thereon was also recorded. The order further reflects that
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon the
submission regarding the availability of an alternative Nistari
pathway, expressly stated that he did not wish to press the writ
petition. It was pursuant to the aforesaid statement that the writ
petition was dismissed as not pressed. Thus, the order under review
was not an adjudication of the disputed questions concerning the
nature of the land, the existence of the pathway, the alleged
availability of an alternative route or the respective rights of the
parties. Rather, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with
the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
7. It is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction under Order
XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is extremely limited.
Review is permissible only to correct a manifest error or an error
apparent on the face of the record. Re-appreciation or re-evaluation
of evidence, reassessment of facts, or substitution of one conclusion
for another amounts to appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible
1
in review proceedings. ( Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai , Meera
2
Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) , Avijit Tea Co.
3
Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union
4
of India and others , Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi
1 (1987) 1 SCC 61
2 (1995) 1 SCC 170
3 (1996) 10 SCC 174
4 AIR 2000 SC 1650

6
5
and others and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair
6
and others . )
8. Very recently in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1927 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under :-
“15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot
be assumed unless expressly conferred by the
statute or the rules having the force of a statute.
The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed
unless it is conferred by law on the authority or
the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of
CPC deal with the power of review of the courts.
The power of review is different from appellate
power and is subject to the following limitations to
maintain the finality of judicial decisions:
15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of
an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the
scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary,
(1995) 1 SCC 170).
15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate
powers, which may enable an appellate court to
correct all manner of errors committed by the
subordinate court. (Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v
Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389).
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected.
A review petition, it must be remembered, has a
5 (2013) 2 SCC 1
6 (2017) 4 SCC 692

7
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an
appeal in disguise. (Pursion Devtu. Sumitri Devi,
(1997) 8 SCC 715).
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for
the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a
view. Such powers can be exercised within the
limits specified in the statute governing the
exercise of power. (Lily Thomas Union of India,
(2000) 6 SCC 224).
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over
its own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the
general rule that once a judgment is signed or
pronounced, it should not be altered, (Inderchand
Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663). Hence, it is
invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice
or to correct grave and palpable errors. (Shivdev
Singh State of Punjah, AIR (1963) SC 1909). ”
9. In the present case, the contention that the alleged alternative
pathway is merely a canal maintenance road, as well as the
assertions concerning subsequent construction activities and the
continuing inconvenience to the villagers, essentially relate to the
underlying merits of the dispute. Such contentions, by themselves,
do not demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the order dated
10.07.2026. So far as the contention regarding the absence of a
resolution of the Gram Panchayat authorising the decision not to
press the original writ petition is concerned, the same does not, in
the facts of the present case, establish an error apparent on the face
of the order passed by this Court. The order under review records
the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the

8
petitioner and the consequential disposal of the writ petition. The
present review proceedings cannot be converted into an inquiry into
the internal decision-making process of the Gram Panchayat or the
circumstances in which the statement was made, particularly when
no error apparent on the face of the judicial order has otherwise
been demonstrated. The grievance that the villagers were unaware
of the decision or that the statement was made without proper
authorisation would require consideration of matters beyond the
record forming the basis of the order under review and cannot, in the
circumstances of the present case, furnish a ground for exercising
the limited jurisdiction of review.
10. This Court is also conscious of the submission that the pathway in
question is used by the villagers for accessing their residential
houses, agricultural lands and other essential public facilities.
However, the question whether the existing pathway constitutes a
public/Nistari pathway, whether the canal maintenance road can
serve as an adequate alternative, and whether any action taken by
the authorities has adversely affected the rights of the villagers are
matters pertaining to the substantive dispute raised in the original
writ petition. Since the original writ petition was dismissed as not
pressed and the disputed questions were not adjudicated on merits,
the said issues cannot be examined afresh in the present
proceedings unless a legally sustainable ground for review of the
order is first established. The grounds urged by the review petitioner,
when considered in their entirety, do not satisfy the requirements for
review of the order dated 10.07.2026.

9
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the review petitioner has failed to establish any error
apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground
warranting review and recall of the order dated 10.07.2026 passed in
WPC No. 3672/2022. The grounds raised in the review petition
essentially seek reconsideration of the controversy underlying the
original writ petition, which is impermissible in the exercise of review
jurisdiction. Consequently, the review petition, being devoid of merit,
is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh