IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.11 of 2007 1. Lala singh 2. Chandeshwar Singh, Both sons of Late Mahendra Singh. 3. Upendra Singh Son of Yaduraj Singh, all resident of Village- Nirpur, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria ---- Writ Petitioners---- Appellants---Petitioners. Versus 1. The state of Bihar through the District Collector, Araria. 2. The District Collector, Araria. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Forbesganj, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria 4.The Anchal Adhikari, Forbesganj, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria 5. Satish Chandra Prasad, Son of Late Sheo Sahay Lal, resident of Village & P.S. Araria, District-Araria ---- Respondents--- Respondents Ist Set----Opposite Parties Ist Set. 6. Pawan Rekha Wife of Late Chhotan Singh 7. Karun Singh 8. Barun Singh 9. Arun Singh 10. Pankaj Kumar Singh 11. Sheo Kumar Singh, all sons of Late Chhotan Singh of Village- Nirpur, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria. 12. Sheela Devi D/O Late Chhotan Singh and W/O Shri Ram Binod Singh of Village- Gheghta Govindchak, P.S. Sonepur, District- Saran(Chapra)- All heirs and legal representatives of deceased writ petitioner no.4- Chhotan Singh ---- Respondents 2nd set - ----Respondents 2nd set ---- Opposite Parties 2nd Set. -------- 4. 12.1.2009 Heard Mr. Syed Wazir Ali for the petitioners, and Mr. R.K. Sinha, learned Judicial Counsel to Standing No.8. This application has been filed by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.13539 of 2004, for recall of the order dated 5.7.2005, and for a fresh decision in accordance with law. He submits that the writ petition 2 was with respect to proceedings under section 48(D) of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereas the order dated 5.7.2005 is with respect to mutation proceedings. In his submission, perhaps the order meant for a different petition was erroneously recorded in the present proceeding. Learned Government Counsel submits that the frame of the writ petition is indeed with respect to Section 48(D) of the Act. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me on a perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition that an application under section 48(D) of the Act was disposed of, and was not with respect to mutation proceedings. In that view of the mater, the order dated 5.7.2005 is hereby recalled, and the writ petition shall be heard and disposed of afresh. This application is accordingly disposed of. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)