Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Gram Panchayat’s Bid To Revive Villagers’ Pathway Writ Dismissed As ‘Not Pressed’

Gram Panchayat Tandwa sought review and recall of the order dismissing its writ petition as not pressed, and restoration of that petition for hearing on merits.

The writ petition concerned an alleged public/Nistari pathway over Government land in Village Tandwa.

The original order recorded that, after the respondents submitted that an alternative Nistari pathway was available, counsel for the Panchayat did not wish to press the petition.

In review, the Panchayat argued that the alternative was only a canal-maintenance road, that no Gram Panchayat resolution authorised withdrawal, and that the villagers remained affected by the loss of access.

The State opposed review, contending that the petition had been dismissed in accordance with counsel’s recorded statement and that the review grounds sought reconsideration on the merits.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confer a limited review jurisdiction: review is available to correct an error apparent on the face of the record or on another legally sufficient ground, but is not an appeal or an opportunity to rehear the case, reappraise evidence, or substitute a different view.

The Court relied on Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, Lily Thomas v. Union of India, Sasi (D) through LRS v. Aravindakshan Nair, and other authorities, and applied the Supreme Court’s reiteration of these limits in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna.

The order under review recorded counsel’s express statement that the writ petition would not be pressed after the respondents referred to an alternative Nistari pathway; it did not decide the disputed questions about the land, pathway, alternative route, or parties’ rights.

The Court held that whether the alternative was adequate, whether later construction impaired access, and whether villagers continued to face hardship concerned the merits of the original dispute, not an error apparent in the order.

The asserted lack of a Panchayat resolution and villagers’ alleged lack of knowledge did not establish such an error; examining the Panchayat’s internal decision-making or the circumstances behind counsel’s statement would require an inquiry beyond the record underlying the order.

It dismissed the review petition, leaving in place the order dismissing the original writ petition as not pressed; there was no order as to costs.