IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.208 of 2009 1. UMESH RAM, SON OF LATE DOMI RAM 2. KAMLESHWARI PASWAN, SON OF LATE BILAST PASWAN 3. WAKIL RAM, SON OF LATE MADAN RAM 4. BHUJDEO PASWAN, SON OF LATE MANKI PASWAN 5. MAHESHWAR PASWAN, SON OF LATE MANKI PASWAN 6. SUKHO RAM, SON OF LATE DOMI RAM 7. RAM CHARITRA PASWAN @ CHALITTAR PASWAN, SON OF LATE GOSAI PASWAN 8. MAHANTH RAM, SON OF LATE SITA RAM RAM 9. MAKKO PASWAN, SON OF MOGAL PASWAN 10.KIRO PASWAN, SON OF JAGESHWAR PASWAN. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – LAKSHMIPUR, P.S. RUPAULI, DISTIRCT – PURNIA. …. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, PURNIA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER AT DHAMDAHA WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF PURNIA. 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, RUPAULI WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF PURNIA. … RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 6. NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE LAKSHMIPUR, P.S. RUPAULI, DISTRICT – PURNIA. ….. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. 7. BINO PASWAN, SON OF LATE BOUKU PASWAN 8. KHUSIA MOSAMAT, WIDOW OF LATE BOUKU PASWAN 9. SAKALDEO RAM, SON OF LATE KISHUN RAM 10. KALLAR RAM, SON OF LATE MAHAVIR RAM 11. KAILASH RAM, SON OF LATE CHUNCHUN RAM 12. JANARDAN RAM, SON OF LATE CHUNCHUN RAM. ALL RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 12 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – LAKSHMIPUR, P.S. RAUAULI, DISTRICT – PURNIA. … RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 4/ 17.03.2010 Heard counsel appearing for the review petitioners, the State and the respondents. Review petitioners are the Red Card Holders. The petitioners are interested for review of the order to the extent, a direction has been issued not to dispossess the - 2 - petitioners from the land involved in original Land Ceiling Case No. 2110 of 1973-74. The ground which has been taken for review of the order is not sufficient for reviewing the order. The merit of the case has not been decided by this order. By this order simply ad interim relief was provided to the petitioners till disposal of the revision application. In case the review petitioners have any difficulty they may approach the Revisional Court. The review application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)