IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.156 of 2005 Rajendra Singh, son of Sudama Singh, Resident of Village-Sabili, Post Office- Khajuhatti, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. …. Respondent no.4/ Appellant/Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj. 3. The Circle Officer, Gopalganj Block, District-Gopalganj. ...Respondents-Respondents/ Opposite parties. 4. Satyadeo Mahto, son of Jakhoo Mahto. 5. Naresh Singh, son of Late Vakil Singh. Both resident of village- Sabili, Post Office-Khajuhatti, Police Station-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. ..Respondents 5 and 6/ Respondents/ Opposite parties. 6. Surendra Singh, son of Late Vakil Singh, Resident of village- Sabili, Post Office-Khajuhatti, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. …Petitioner-Respondents/Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.S.Dwivedi, Senior Advocate. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ------- 04/ 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 09.05.2005 by which CWJC No.9528 of 2004 was disposed of by a bench of this court by directing the appropriate respondents to remove encroachment from the public land in question as soon as possible but not later than four weeks from the date of service of a copy of the said order upon District Magistrate, Gopalganj (respondent no.2). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that review petitioner was a party respondent in the said writ petition, but 2 neither any notice was given to him, nor any opportunity to take part in the argument was given. He further submits that there was no encroachment on the public land and the review petitioner has constructed his house on his own land settled long back by the ex- landlord, whereafter they have been duly recorded. 4. From the aforesaid order, it is quite apparent that the encroachment had not been directed to be removed from any specific land, rather it is stated that encroachment had to be removed from public land. If there is no public land at that place, there would not be any question of the review petitioner being an encroacher or removal of any such encroachment. It thus transpires that in the aforesaid circumstances although in spite of four weeks granted by the court, more than four years have lapsed and nothing has happened and even according to the petitioner, his possession has not been disturbed. 5. In the said circumstances, if the authorities find that there is no public land and there is no encroachment by the review petitioner upon any public land, the authorities concerned shall not pass any order, nor they shall take any action against the review petitioner in compliance of the said order. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this civil review petition is disposed of. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)