Phoolchand Sethiya Dead And Smt. Sajan Bai Sethiya Dead Through Their Legal Heirs Namely - S v. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No. 118 of 2017 (Arising out of judgment/order dated 18.8.2017 in Writ Appeal No.423 of 2016 of the learned Division Bench)

1. Phoolchand Sethiya ( Dead ) And Smt. Sajan Bai Sethiya ( Dead) Through Their Legal Heirs Namely :- Smt. Sandhya Jain, And Smt. Sajan Bai Sethiya(Dead) Through: Their Legal Heirs Namely- Smt. Sandhya Jain, Aged About 59 Years, D/o Late Shri Phool Chand Sethiya, R/o 10, Near J. J. Nursing Home, Malviya Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Kalpana Karnawat W/o Late Shri Suresh Karnawat Aged About 57 Years R/o 10, Near J. J. Nursing Home, Malviya Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Pushpa Jain W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o 10, Near J. J. Nursing Home, Malviya Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Through: The Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Arang- Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Additional Tahsildar, Shri Jageshwar Kaushal, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Shri Janardan Prasad Pandey, Advocates.

For Respondent/State : Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge.

Order on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 14/12/2017 1.

This application seeking review of a judgment issued in writ appellate jurisdiction is made alleging that Section 51(4) of the Land Revenue Code was not considered. It is seen from the judgment sought to be reviewed that the

arguments advanced at the hearing of the appeal with reference to Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code as discernible from paragraph-6 of the impugned judgment were considered and answered through paragraphs-8, 9 & 10 thereof. We do not see that there is any error apparent on the face of the record warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. This application for review therefore fails.

2.

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