Chandramani Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.105 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.996 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Chandramani Pandey 2.

Birendra Kumar Pandey 3.

Satyendra Kumar Pandey 4.

Shailendra Kumar Pandey 5.

Upendra Kumar Pandey Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are sons of Late Sheo Kumar Pandey 6.

Smt. Prabha Pandey, Wife of Birendra Kumar Pandey 7.

Smt. Meena Pandey, Wife of Satendra Kumar Pandey 8.

Smt. Kanchan Pandey, Wife of Shailendra Pandey 9.

Kamla Devi, Wife of Chandramani Pandey All are residents of Village-Mohanpur, P.O-Nalanda, P.S-Nalanda, DistrictNalanda at Bihar Sharif. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna 3.

The Commissioner Patna Division Patna.

4.

The Collector cum District Magistrate, Nalanda, at Bihar Sharif. 5.

The Additional Collector, Nalanda, at Bihar Sharif. 6.

The Circle Officer, Silao, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. 7.

The Tourist Officer, Department of Tourist, Govt. of Bihar, Rajgir, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-04-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. Though, this review application has been placed with office notes pointing out certain defects by the Registry in filing

Patna High Court C. REV. No.105 of 2019(3) dt.24-04-2019 2/2 of the civil review application, the defects are ignored. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-12.

In the present review application, the petitioners seek review of an order, dated 25.02.2019, passed in CWJC 996 of 2016. This Court, after having noticed existence of complex questions of title and possession in the said case, has recorded that such questions cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I do not find any ground available to review the said order, dated 25.02.2019. No error apparent on record has been pointed out by the petitioners in the order under review. This application is, accordingly, dismissed being without any merit.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) ragini/- U