Shailendra Kumar Deshmukh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 81 of 2017 (Arising out of judgment/order dated 22.3.2017 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.34 of 2016 of the learned Division Bench) Shailendra Kumar Deshmukh S/o Purshottam Lal, Aged About 33 Years R/o Amapara, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

5. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsil Dondi-Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

6. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

7. Department Of Forests, Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

8. N T P C - S A I L Power Company Private Limited (N S P C L) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, N B C C Tower, 15 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, Delhi- 110066 ---- Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent/NTPC : Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, Judge.

Order on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 16/11/2017 1.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel for the NTPC.

2.

This application seeks review of what is contained in para-7 of the judgment dated 22.3.2017 rendered in Writ Petition (PIL) No.34 of 2016. The plea in that public interest litigation was that there are instances of non-consideration of matters relating to process of acquisition. Therefore, this Court had directed the Commissioner, Durg, to do the needful in terms of what is stated in that judgment by commencing requisite executive action within a period of two weeks. It was clarified in para-7 of the judgment that if the very issue has already been decided finally by the competent statutory authorities, executive authorities or judicial authorities including the Courts, they would be taken as final and shall not be reopened. We do not see any ground to review the said direction. There is no requirement for any further clarification since the judgment is clear. The Petitioner also cannot seek any further relief having regard to the directions already issued through the order sought to be reviewed. This application for review therefore fails.

3.

In the result, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Pritinker Diwaker) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu