IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.372 of 2008 RAMDEO SAH & ANR Versus GARIBAN PASWAN ----------- 2 23.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for impleadment of Collector, Muzaffarpur and Circle Officer, Kurhani as party to the suit. The suit which has been filed by the petitioner only for the following reliefs. I. That upon consideration of the facts mentioned above the Court be pleased to declare the title of the plaintiffs over the disputed land by holding the order dated 28.12.1991 and passed in Case No. 52/91-92 and Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 70-92-93 by the learned Circle Officer, Kurhani and the learned Collector, Muzaffarpur respectively as illegal without jurisdiction and against the provisions of B.P.P.H.T. Act. II. That the Court be further pleased to - 2 - pass a decree for recovery of possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land. III. That a decree for cost be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant. Apparently, such suit in terms of Section 18 of the B.P.P.H.T. Act is not maintainable as would be found from the provisions of Section 18 of the Act to be produced herein below:- “18. Order under this Act to be final.- The orders passed under this Act shall be final. Subject to the provisions of Section 21, all orders passed by the Collector in any proceeding under this Act shall be final, and no suit shall lie in any civil court to vary or set aside any such order except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction.” In that view of the matter since the suit itself is not maintainable, no error can be said to have been committed by the Court below in refusing impleadment of the - 3 - Collector, Muzaffarpur and Circle Officer, Kurhani as party to the suit Realizing this aspect of the matter Mr. Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioners may be given permission to withdraw the suit in order to avail the statutory remedy under the B.P.P.H.T. Act. This Court without expressing any opinion on such prayer would only observe that it would be open for the petitioners to file an application in this regard before the Court below which is expected to be disposed of in terms of Section 18 of the Act. With the aforementioned observations, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha. J.)