Rajendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.7 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.387 of 2017 ====================================================== Rajendra Singh, Son of Late Ram Bilash Singh, Resident of Village - Asadpur Maibhara, Police Station - Goraul, District - Vaishali. ... ... Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, Bihar.

3. The Collector, District - Vaishali.

4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Mahaua, District-Vaishali.

5. Asha Devi, Wife of Sri Shambhu Nath Singh

6. Indu Devi, Wife of Sri Ram Nath Singh Respondent No. 5 and 6 are Resident of Village - Asadpur Maibhara, Police Station - Goraul, District - Vaishali.

7. Ambika Singh, Son of Late Jwala Singh Resident of Village - Asadpur Maibhara, Post Office - Bushunpur Arara, Police Station - Goraul, District - Vaishali.

... ... Respondents/ Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satish Narain Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Khurshid Alam, AAG 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 04-07-2018

Patna High Court C. REV. No.7 of 2018 dt.04-07-2018 2/3 Seeking review/recall of an order dated 27.11.2017 passed by us in LPA No. 387 of 2017 this application has been filed.

There being delay of 3 days in filing of the application for review, I A No. 3406 of 2018 has been filed seeking condonation of the delay. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in this application the same is condoned.

Primarily it was argued that the LPA was decided as the Counsel was not present and correct facts were not brought to the notice of this Court. We therefore heard the Counsel at length, perused the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the observations made by the learned Writ Court in paragraphs- 6 and 7 of the impugned order which we have already reproduced in our original order. The learned Writ Court has found various reasons for refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution that also after a period of more than 12 years. Taking note of various reasons that were considered by the learned Writ Court which were also taken note of by us while dismissing the LPA we find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review or reconsideration of the matter, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Patna High Court C. REV. No.7 of 2018 dt.04-07-2018 3/3 Court in the case of Sasi vs. Aravindakshan Nair [(2017) 4 SCC 692].

Accordingly, finding no grounds for review or recall of the order this application is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) mrl./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 07.07.2018 Transmission Date