Patna High CourtC. REV./232/2014dismissed

Anup Kumar Singh @ Anup Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-02Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.232 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7708 of 2014 =========================================================== Anup Kumar Singh @ Anup Kumar Sinha, son of Late Madan Mohan Singh, resident of village + P.O. - Aami, P.S. - Dighwara, District - Saran.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner, Saran at Chapra

2. The Collector, Saran at Chapra.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepur, Saran.

4. The Secretary, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna.

5. Jawahar Sah, son of Late Ram Karan Sah, R/o - Village + P.O. - Aami, P.S. - Dighwara, District - Saran.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No.4:

Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate For the State :

A.A.G.-13 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-03-2016 This Review Application has been filed by respondent no. 5 to the writ proceeding being C.W.J.C. No. 7708/2013 in relation to the final order passed in writ proceeding being dated 14.03.2014.

Having heard learned counsel for the review petitioner, in my view, the review petition is wholly misconceived and even lacks bona fide. The order was passed by this Court in the year 2014 noticing that the settlement with respondent no. 5, who is review petitioner,

Patna High Court C. REV. No.232 of 2014 dt.02-03-2016 2 / 2 was to last only a few weeks. In spite of this, he has managed to get renewal of the settlement which was not to be made with him in the year 2014 - 15.

Learned counsel for the Hindu Religious Trust Board (in short the "Board") points out that after an order of this Court the settlement of respondent no. 5 has been cancelled. It may also be noted here that the order dated 14.03.2014 was passed in presence of the parties and no grievance was made in regard to any part of the order as to wrong recording of any fact. What is being sought to be argued today is seeking a rehearing of the matter which is not permissible.

This review application is misconceived and dismissed as such.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Rajeev/- U