IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil REVIEW No.70 of 2009 1.Mohan Yadav son of Late Awadh Yadav. 2.(a) Arun Yadav (b) Ram Chandra Yadav (c) Shyam Sundar Yadav (d) Abhinandan Yadav (e) Choto Lal Yadav (all sons of Late Gonar Yadav) (f) Nunu Dai Devi (widow of Late Gonar Yadav) 3. Gajadhar Yadav son of Jalo Yadav 4. Ghutari Devi widow of Late Bahadur Yadav 5. Yaduvir Yadav 6. Ratan Yadav 7. Dhiren Yadav Petitioners 5 to 7 sons of Late Bahadur Yadav 8. Lotaki Devi widow of Late Talo Yadav 9. Bechan Yadav 10.Pradeep Yadav Petitioners 9 to 10 sons of Late Talo Yadav All resident of Village Sitanabad,Tola- Kumedan, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt. Saharsa. ---Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.Commissioner, Koshi Pramandal, Saharsa. 3.Addl. Collector, Saharsa. 4.Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt. Saharsa. 5.Circle Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt. Saharsa. ---Respondents----Opp. Parties (1st Set) 6. Jagdish Yadav, son of Anandi Yadav, resident of Vilage Sitanabad, Tola-Kumedan, P.O. Sitanabad P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt. Saharsa. ----Writ Petitioner ---Opp.Party (2nd Set) ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr B.N.P. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Dhurendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 5. For the Private Respondents : Mr Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate. --------- 9. 14.7.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. This application is for review of the order dated 29.1.2009 passed in CWJC No.4874 of 2002, whereby the order dated 6th of June, 2001 passed by the 2 Divisional Commissioner, who was respondent no.2 in the said writ application, in Mutation Revision Case No.35 of 1995-96 was quashed as the Divisional Commissioner was no longer competent to exercise the power of second revision in view of the Bihar Act 3 of 1983. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a consequence of the order quashing the order of the Divisional Commissioner, the order passed by the Additional Collector remains in existence, which, according to the petitioners, was an illegal order for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this review application at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable for the simple reason that the petitioners, who are respondents no.6 to 10 in the said writ application, had appeared pursuant to the notice issued by this Court and contested the matter while the writ petition was being heard. It is further submitted that the order under review does not suffer from any error or any illegality necessitating its review. Accordingly, this application is fit to be dismissed. Be that as it may, the only ground advanced on behalf of the petitioners that by quashing the order of the Divisional Commissioner, the order of the Additional 3 Collector shall remain operative, in my view, is not a valid ground to review the order dated 29th of January, 2009. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it was open for the petitioners herein, if so aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, to take the recourse of law against the said order. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)