Dismissed

Smt. Durga Devi Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2019REVP/7/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner could not re-argue the writ petition on merits or raise new pleas in a review application, as review proceedings are not appeals and must be strictly confined to manifest errors.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed as it contains no substratum for review and seeks to convert the petition into an appeal.

Smt. Durga Devi Gupta Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

REVP No. 7 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Durga Devi Gupta D/o Late Mannulal Gupta, Aged About 50 Years W/o Shri Ajaydhar Gupta, R/o 272, Bada Chauraha, Shahganj, Unnaw (U.P.) Through Power Of Attorney Jawahar Lal Gupta, Aged About 61 Years, S/o Late Shri Munnu Lal Gupta, R/o Raman Mandir Ward No. 21, Chunabhatti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Collector Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Commissioner.

¶11

Tahsildar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

Application for review of the Order dated 29.10.2018

passed in

WPC No.2353 of 2018

By Circular

in Chamber

Hon'ble Justice Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶19

¶20

05/03/2019

¶21

The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

¶22

The Review-petitioner (in short the petitioner) seeks review of the order dated 29.10.2018 passed in WPC No.2353/2018 on the ground that without due procedure the Corporation has closed the road in the name of handling over the land to the petitioner, just to avoid compensation; the petitioner came to know that during last 20 years the neighbours have erected gates in their houses and are using it for transportation; and the local persons and students are using the same as public road. In fact after lapse of 2 decades the land in question has become useless for the petitioner.

¶23

After going through the record it is manifest that on 10.09.2018 in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the Corporation this Court passed the following order in WPC No.2353/2018:-

¶24

“As submitted by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the Corporation, the Municipal Corporation is permitted to remove the road from the petitioner's land and hand over possession of the same to the petitioner.

¶25

¶26

Let it be done by the Corporation within a month, failing which, this Court shall draw contempt action against the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur.

¶27

Both the parties are permitted to make videography of the entire operation.”

¶28

Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 29.10.2018, which is sought to be reviewed herein, all the learned counsels for the respective parties were present and on the said date learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submission at Para 1:-

¶29

“1.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the fact that the respondent Corporation has complied with the undertaking submitted on10.09.2018 and has handed over the subject land to the petitioner, nothing survives in this writ petition .”

¶30

On the basis of the above statement, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶31

On consideration of the above-stated grounds, which are in the nature of taking liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in review petition.

¶32

There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts, which could not be

¶33

¶34

produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that 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 the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has not produced any ground for review.

¶35

It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law.

¶36

It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455. Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothemicsm & Hydropower Ltd. And others, (2005) 6 SCC 651.

¶37

¶38

As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to

¶39

be and is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶41

Ankit

Smt. Durga Devi Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Durga Devi Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S R. B. Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S R.B Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Singh Kamal Vs Management of Lanco

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission And Ors.

Bachan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shymlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh