Patna High CourtC. REV./141/2015dismissed

Ramakant Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-11-15Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh,Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.141 of 2015 In LPA 186 of 2009 ====================================================== Ramakant Singh, son of Late Shiv Pujan Singh, resident of village - Nawalia, P.O. Dighita, P.S. - Kochas (Parsathua), District - Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

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

3. The Additional Collector, Rohtas.

4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sasaram, Rohtas.

5. Jokhan Singh, son of Late Parikhan Singh.

6. Kamal Prasad Singh, son of Kokhan Singh All resident of village - Naawalia, P.O. Dighita, P.S. - Kochas (Parsathua), District - Rohtas.

7. Kameshwar Singh, son of Bansh Narain Singh, resident of village - Nawalia, P.O. Dighita, P.S. - Kochas (Parsathua), District - Rohtas.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Makardhwaj Upadhyay For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 2.

15-11-2016 The delay of 11 days in filing the Civil Review Application is condoned.

Heard Sri Rajeev Roy, learned counsel for the review petitioner.

The two writ petitions were filed against two orders of Board of Revenue, Bihar. Both the writ petitions were dismissed affirming the order of the Board of Revenue,

Patna High Court C. REV. No.141 of 2015 (2) dt.15-11-2016 Bihar. Two Letters Patent Appeals were filed being LPA No. 194/2009 and LPA No. 186/2009. Both the Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed. Against LPA No. 194/2009, Civil Review No. 144/2015 is filed which was also dismissed. Now, against LPA No. 186/2009, the present Review Application has been filed.

It is now urged that Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We find that this question of jurisdiction was neither raised before the Appellate Authority or before the Board of Revenue or in the writ petition or even in the Letters Patent Appeal. A new issue cannot be raised and argued in a Review Application.

The review application is misconceived and dismissed, accordingly.

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