Patna High CourtC. REV./51/2017dismissed

Birendra Sah And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-01-02Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.51 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.236 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Birendra Sah

2. Arun Sah

3. Akhilesh Sah ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Collector of the District, Madhepura.

3. The Additional Collector, Collecteriate, Madhepura.

4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Uda Kishunganj, Dist- Madhepura.

5. The Anchal Adhikari Bihariganj, Dist- Madhepura.

6. Geeta Devi, W/o Sri Shambhu Sah, Resident of Village- Rajgang, PO & PSBihariganj, Dist- Madhepura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Mira Kumari For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (AAG 12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-01-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this review petition to review the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in CWJC No. 236 of 2015.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2016 holding that if the petitioner is at all aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure-5) passed in Mutation Appeal No. 44 of 2007-08 by the respondent DCLR, Udakishunganj, there shall be an alternative remedy of revision before the competent

Patna High Court C. REV. No.51 of 2017(8) dt.02-01-2019 2/2 authority. It is submitted that liberty be given to the petitioners to present revision before the competent authority but I do not find any reason to review the order dated 19.12.2016 simply on the ground that it is the statutory right of the petitioners to file revision before the competent authority as prescribed under the Mutation Act and for that no observation is required. This review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U