Hira Lal Sah, v. The State Of Bihar.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.210 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6560 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Hira Lal Sah, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Sah, resident of Village- Nokha, Post office and Police Station- Nokha, District- Rohtas. 2.

Mahendra Prasad, Son of Hira Lal Sah, resident of Village- Nokha, Post office and Police Station- Nokha, District- Rohtas. 3.

Rabindra Prasad, Son of Hira Lal Sah, resident of Village- Nokha, Post office and Police Station- Nokha, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Bihar Land Tribunal, through its Secretary, Bihar Land Tribunal. 3.

Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 5.

Circle Officer, Nokha, District Rohtas.

6.

Janardan Prasad, Son of Hira Lal Sah, resident of Village- Nokha, Post office and Police station- Nokha, District- Rohtas. 7.

Surendra Prasad, Son of Hira Lal Sah, resident of Village- Nokha, Post office and Police station- Nokha, District- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-11-2019 The petitioners of the present review application were impleaded as respondents no. 7, 8 and 9 in CWJC No. 6560 of 2017 which was filed for setting aside an order of the Bihar Land Tribunal dated 09.05.2014, passed in BLT Case No. 258 of 2014.

A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition on

Patna High Court C. REV. No.210 of 2019(3) dt.06-11-2019 2/2 behalf of respondent no. 6 and considering the said counter affidavit it was stated on behalf of the petitioner of that case that his grievance did not survive any more in view of the stand taken by respondent no. 6 in the counter affidavit. In view of the aforesaid stand the writ application was dismissed as having become infructuous.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners has submitted that the said order was passed in their absence and, therefore, should not be allowed to bind them. It goes without saying.

The said order dated 12.03.2019 was passed in the light of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner in that case. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has informed that a title suit is pending in respect of the dispute in question. Any observation made in the said order dated 12.03.2019 shall not prejudice the case of these review petitioners before any forum.

This review application is disposed of accordingly. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Rajesh/- U