Patna High CourtC. REV./436/2014disposed

Prasadi Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-04-29Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.436 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9746 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Prasadi Singh

2. Prasanna Kumar Singh

3. Mauleshwari Singh

4. Longeshwari Singh All Sons of Late Dharo Singh resident of Village and post- Maheshwari, P.S Sono, District- Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, District- Jamui

4. The Executive Engineer, Division-1, Department of REO, Jhajha, District- Jamui.

5. The Executive Engineer, Division II, Department of REO, Jhajha, District- Jamui.

6. The Assistant Engineer, Department of REO, Jhajha, Jamui, DistrictJamui

7. Shri Nitish Kumar, Contractor Son of Late Anil Prasad Singh resident of Village- Machiyar (Girish Talkies) Jamui, P.S - Jamui, District- Jamui.

8. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh Son of Late Pana Singh, aged about 59 years, resident of village- Maheshwari, p.s. -Sono, District- Jamui. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 29-04-2015 Although four petitioners have approached this Court praying for review of an order dated 12.9.2014 as modified vide order dated 13.11.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9746 of 2013 inter alia on grounds that they are co-raiyats of the petitioners and thus are also entitled for apportion of compensation whatsoever would be awarded by the District Magistrate in the light of the directions passed in the writ petition.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.436 of 2014 (3) dt.29-04-2015 2 / 2 Considering that the sole relief prayed in the writ petition in question was for a direction to the authorities of the District of Jamui to either vacate the raiyati land of the writ petitioners or to pay appropriate compensation in respect thereof, I am of the opinion that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioners cannot be raised by way of review for there is no adjudication on such issue in the writ petition nor there is any finding thereon. The reasons whatsoever for which these four petitioners have come before this Court in the form of review, they may raise their claims before the District Magistrate, Jamui and who shall consider their grievance and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

This Court not being persuaded for review of the order passed in the writ petition disposes of the review application accordingly.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U