Direction To 'Act In Accordance With Law' Does Not Determine Substantive Rights, Non-Impleadment Not A Ground For Review: Chhattisgarh High Court

Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a court order merely directing competent authorities to proceed in accordance with law does not adjudicate the inter se rights of parties. A bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that the non-impleadment of affected parties in such writ proceedings does not constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record" to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction.

The petitioners claimed to be in settled possession of a disputed land for decades under a valid lease and faced eviction proceedings initiated by a third party under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. During these proceedings, the third party filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was disposed of with a simple direction to the revenue authorities to act in accordance with law. The petitioners, who were not made parties to this writ petition, filed a review petition claiming the order violated principles of natural justice as it triggered immediate dispossession and demolition notices against them.

The primary question before the court was whether an order directing revenue authorities to proceed in accordance with law could be reviewed on the ground that affected parties were not impleaded. The court was also called upon to determine if the grounds raised regarding the illegality of the underlying eviction proceedings could be examined within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

Review Jurisdiction Highly Restricted

Relying on a catena of Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that the scope of interference under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. The bench emphasised that review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked for rehearing or rearguing the matter on merits. The jurisdiction is confined solely to patent errors or the discovery of new evidence.

Process Of Reasoning Precludes Review

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, the court noted that review jurisdiction is not a remedy for erroneous decisions. The bench observed that an error which is not self-evident and requires a deeper inquiry cannot trigger a review. The court firmly stated that "an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record."

Direction To Act As Per Law Does Not Determine Rights

Addressing the core grievance regarding the violation of natural justice, the court clarified the nature of its earlier order. The bench observed that the original writ court had not adjudicated any rights but had simply directed the competent authority to proceed legally. Therefore, the failure to hear the petitioners did not render the order defective on its face or inherently unjust.

"The said order is thus in the nature of a direction simpliciter and does not determine any substantive rights of the Petitioners," the court observed.

Eviction Merits Cannot Be Examined In Review

The petitioners had raised several arguments concerning the illegality of the demarcation report, the applicability of Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code where a residential house exists, and the validity of concurrent orders by revenue authorities. The court firmly rejected the attempt to adjudicate these complex statutory issues within a review petition.

"The attempt of the Petitioners in the present review petition is clearly to reopen the entire controversy and to indirectly assail the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which is impermissible in law."

Alternative Remedies Available To Petitioners

While declining to review the earlier order, the High Court noted that the petitioners were not left remediless regarding their imminent dispossession. The bench clarified that a review petition could not be entertained merely based on an apprehension of eviction without a patent legal error in the original high court order.

"It is always open to the Petitioners to avail such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law against any specific action taken by the authorities," the court recorded.

Concluding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court dismissed the review petition. The court maintained that no case for interference was made out under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, granting the petitioners liberty to challenge the specific eviction actions through appropriate legal channels.

Date of Decision: 24 March 2026