The Bihar State Housing Board And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.12 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.
The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Chairman, near Old Secretariat, Patna 2.
The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, near Old Secretariat, Patna. 3.
The Executive Engineer, Division 1, Kankarbagh, Hanuman Nagar, Patna - 20.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
The District Magistrate and Collector, Patna. 3.
The Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Patna. 4.
Ashok Kumar Jaiswal son of Srimati Rama Devi 5.
Arun Kumar Jaiswal son of Srimati Rama Devi 6.1. Raj Kumar Jaiswal husband of Sheela Rani Jaiswal, Son of late Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal 6.2. Gaurav Jaiswal Son of Sheela Rani Jaiswal 6.3. Saurav Jaiswal Son of Sheela Rani Jaiswal 6.4. Vaisbhav Jaiswal Son of Sheela Rani Jaiswal 3ii to 3iv are Sons of Raj Kumar Jaiswal 7.
Usha Choudhary 8.
Avinash Kumar Jaiswal All residing near Bhootnath Ashram, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Holding No. 432 Patna 20.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anshuman Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2023 Though the present petition has been filed for review of the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 8574 of 1997, however, the learned counsel for the review petitioners, after some arguments, submits that since none of the grounds, as envisaged under Order
Patna High Court C. REV. No.12 of 2017(3) dt.14-12-2023 2/2 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 exists so as to warrant review of the order of this Court dated 16.07.2015, passed in CWJC No. 8574 of 1997, nor any cogent or important evidence has been brought on record of the review petition nor there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record of the case, the review petitioner be granted liberty to file appropriate appeal.
2.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case the petitioners opt to file appropriate appeal, the delay in filing the same may be condoned, in accordance with law. 3.
Accordingly, the present review petition stands disposed off, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies, as are otherwise available under the law.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U