IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.252 of 2003 Sidh Nath Pandey son of Nagdeo Pandey, resident of village Ramapur Sanddia, P.O. Ratanpur, P.S. Arrah Muffasil, District Bhojpur (Arrah)……..Respondent no.6-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal, Training Centre, Consolidation, at Directorate of Consolidation, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Arrah. 4. The Consolidation Officer, Arrah. …..Respondent Nos.1 to 4-Opposte parties. 5. Indradeo Pandey, son of Ram Singhasan Pandey (deceased), resident of village Ramapur Sanadia, Post Office Ratanpur, Police Station Arrah, Muffasil, District Bhojpur (Arrah). ….Petitioner-Opposite Party 6. Bishwanath Pandey son of Nagdeo Pandey, decd. 7. Barmeshwar Pandey son of Bishwa Nath Pandey, decd. 8. Bhikhari Pandey @ Damar Pandey. 9. Dinesh Pandey @ Namh Murti Pandey 10. Krishnajee Pandey 11. Kanhaiyajee Pandey, all sons of Late Brahamdeo Pandey, residents of village Ramapur Sanadia, P.O. Ratanpur, P.S. Arrah Muffasil , District Bhojpur (Arrah). …Respondents-Opposite Parties. For the appellants : Mr. Ambey Nayan Choubey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to GA.2 ----------- 10/ 05.03.2009 This civil review petition arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 439 of 1995, which was filed by opposite party no.5 against the orders of Consolidation Authorities. However, vide order dated 14.02.1997 the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, as learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the three courts sought permission to withdraw the writ petition in order to file civil suit for partition of his shares in the properties involved in the proceeding. Later at the instance of the writ petitioner, the writ case was again heard on 11.03.1997 as it was stated that while disposing 2 of the writ petition it was to be observed that the title suit shall be decided in accordance with law irrespective of the findings arrived at by the Consolidation Authorities but that observation was not recorded in order dated 14.02.1997. Hence, by order dated 11.03.1997 this court directed that in continuation of order dated 14.02.1997 it was made clear that if such suit is filed the same shall be decided in accordance with law irrespective of the findings arrived at by the Consolidation Authorities. Now this petition has been filed on behalf of the review petitioner, who was respondent no.6 in the writ petition. However, neither any error apparent on the face of the record of the said order has been shown nor any fresh material has been produced, which was not available earlier, nor this court finds any reason to take a different view which was taken by this court earlier. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)