This review petition by Ramchandra Singh and others, challenging the dismissal of WP No.402/2009 regarding pension/land revenue issues, was dismissed as there were no grounds for review and it was sought to treat the petition as an appeal.
The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:E‘S‘%§E HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [/f REVIEW PETITIONNO. OF 2012
PETITIONERS:
Ramchandra Singh, Son of Amarpal Singh (wrongly mentioned as Dharampal in impugned order),agedabout67 years;
Krishna Kumar Singh, son of Amarpai Singh, aged about60 years; Vinay Kumar Singh, son of Amarpai Singh, aged about50 years;
Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Amarpai Singh, agedabout48 years;
Dev Kumar Singh,sonofAmarpaiSingh, aged about37 years;
Ali are residents of vil|age-Taperke|a, Tehsil— Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (Chhattisgarh)
VERSUS
Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C‘G.)
State of Chhattisgarh
REVIEW PETITION UNDERCHAPTER-VIOFTHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHRULES,2007
eviewEatitionNa.4-0:,2012
'rETmONERS : RammandraSingh &others VERSUS L .xrREsPoNDENTs :‘ Baard~§£iRevenaéGhhattisgams‘another
"(?asseron2mz)>a‘mié2?
’slnstant .is cmsidered in:Ghamberunderwe feview- petition v: provisians-of Rime- QDQ) of theaHigh:Gourtwof:Chhaitisgarh Ru!es,:26mf; :’ . ‘ By/thisrreview petituEn ~tha petitionersseekreviewvefme- order: in WP“ (222) No. 402112699 dated passedi' “03.082009, (Ramchandra,Singh 'v: Hoardxof RevenueChhattisgarh 8:22 Anether). 3‘. This C'ourt'. after hearing the counsel appeazing, far the _ petitionersdismissed‘thepetitionheiding“in View of thefact'that. the concurrentfindingshavebeenrecorded bythecourtstbeiow and in viewofthedecisionpassedwby,thiscourtincaseof Baliramv.Boardof Revenue-end Anothet",inmyopinion,thi” s petitionhasnomerit‘. -4. in the.review: petition, this > After perusing!thegroundetaken t courtisoftheopinienthat’thecounseitarthereviewpattionere
1 2009 (1) CGLJ 30
r has failedtomake out any ground,forrevieweftheorder‘ dated. ‘7 03.08.20G9; Under the; garb, of" the review petitian, the petitionersseekanapportunitytoarguethezentirecaseiafresm > which would amount toe canverttherreview petition inteaanv
appeal andthe sameisenotsustainabieinlaw. >
Sahu
Forthe, reasonsmentionedhereinabove,the review'appiioation is dismissed.Noorder‘as stocosts.
‘3
5 sci/-
MK. Agarwm
Judge
' V
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can review the order dated 03.08.2009 in WP No.402/2009.
Whether the review petitioners can argue the entire case afresh under the guise of review.
Whether the review petition has merit considering the concurrent findings and the Baliram decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramchandra Singh v. Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh & othersFollowed¶3
S. 226(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules
Baliram v. Board of Revenue and AnotherDistinguished¶3
Baliram v. Board of Revenue and Another
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramchandra Singh & others
Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh
MK. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
